Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Wednesday, 9 March 2005 at 19h 8m 41s|
Jim McCrery, congressman from West Louisiana
From the Kansas City Star, March 9, 2005:
Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., the chairman of the panel's Social Security
subcommittee, said Walker was "just dead wrong" and that private accounts, if
coupled with benefit cuts, "can in fact solve the problems of Social Security."
He said it would be "counterproductive" for Bush to rule out private accounts
and urged Democrats to drop their demand that the accounts be dropped.
"Stop this nonsense," McCrery said. "I hope we will all calm down."
Dear Mister McSleasy.
You calm down. You stop this nonsense.
This is simple economics. If you remove from the total you weaken the
aggregate fund. Insurance works when more people put their money into one
fund. That's basic business school McCrery, or did you get your MBA in supine
The funds that are removed will get whittled away by brokerage fees -- which is
what happened in Chile and Great Britain when they went to private accounts.
And Great Britain wants to RETURN TO OUR SYSTEM.
Right now the overhead cost administering this insurance fund, is a mere 2
percent. With private accounts the overhead will rise to 20% or more. And
there will be no guarantee if the account loses money --something that happens
to 40% of mutual funds every year. So are you saying tough luck eating cat
food for at least 40% of our old people?
And when 4.2% gets removed, the employer will only payup on the remaining 2.3%,
further removing financial stability.
And what about the handicap, the disabled, and the children whose father's
die? Who will pay for them?
This is just a chance to pay for debts created by this Republican party (that
means you.) Bush invaded the Teacher's Pension fund when he was Governor, and
he wants to do the same as President.
It's disgusting. I can't believe that you think you are upholding the
constitution and act so slavishly in the interests of the billionaires and the
corporations they control.
But what does a political hack from Shreveport care? Your making your bills
sucking and slurping like a fiend.
It must taste good McCrery, but you are no patriot. You are either an idiot,
or a wolf with a good-ole boy smile. You are wrong sir. You are cruel and you
are wrong sir.
Shame on you, boy.
|Tuesday, 8 March 2005 at 20h 19m 39s|
Watching television regularly, eh?
How much does watching television promote degenerate behavior?
Of course, humans will always produce macabre reflections of themselves in the
actions of murderers, thieves, addicts, and other dysfunctional behavior.
This is not to say that we should blame society for the ills and actions of
certain individuals, BUT we must also realize that there will always be a
percentage of the larger population who are vulnerable or not as mentally
strong as others. A society which forces this percentage to confront
ridiculous and unnecessary stress or emotional disruption is asking for a chain
reaction. But providing for the basic needs of all people is seen as
socialistic. People are assumed to benefit by competiting with individuals,
or they fall by the wayside into some subservient realm because they can't hack
The bang-the-hammer-harder approach and its concomitant ideas about
survival-of-the-fittest mistake the individuals for the species. We are
no different than ants. We cannot live separated from the others, and our
survival depends upon everyone else being able to survive. Decisions must be
made for the good of the whole. When decisions are being made which are bad
for the whole, they are justified based upon a model which assumes that which
is good for the individual is also good for the whole. But since all are not
created with equal strengths and weaknesses, we cannot presume that all
individuals will be able (either physically or mentally) to benefit from any
arrangement which presumes that only the strongest will survive. This is true
when it comes to the species, whereby only the strong species are able to live
and continue to have offspring. When we discuss the intra-relations within the
members of the species however, we are mistaking the individuals for the
species. Within the species survival depends upon balance and shared
The philosophy of striving and getting ahead cannot understand balance and
shared responsibility because these ideas are not even on the mental map.
Striving and getting ahead only concern themselves with behavior mechanisms,
points of strategic value, and how best to defend the perimeter. In this
mindset, the belief that the individual creates society is only a reflection of
the world view that comes from striving and getting ahead. The idea of balance
extensively lessens the importance of the sacred perimeter and creates
mechanisms which are not bent upon getting ahead, but of sharing and
cooperation. The idea of team degenerates into an egotistical competition of
teammates. Although the team can function well enough under this condition,
the ideas and roles of the teammates are not the same, much as the friendly
neighborhood police force is different from a corrupt, pugnacious and
autocratic version of the police force. The roles of our institutions lose
touch with their purpose by this polarity of individualism.
Where does such a rampant individualism come from? You got it. Television. A
gaining percent of the daily time we spend incorporating into our attention the
actions of acted roles and commercial advertizements paid for by huge
corporations. There is a decrease in the attention span spent cognizant of
those in our community. Where and how we get the daily news is just as
important what the news is. The cultural display of ourselves, the morals we
like to embellish, the cherishing of heros and heriones has degenerated into
stars and fantasy lifestyles, and moral self-righteousness. Commercials depict
us as slavish nicompoops, crafty idiots, or suave players in the game of life.
We watch as we applaud ourselves and as we point fingers and try to have
everything nailed down to one short paragraph so that we can provide for the
watchers -- at this very second -- that which alludes the grasp and cannot be
captured. But we have it right here, only on the Itz Happenin Now channel.
And thusly a certain portion of our selves and minds grow an attachment to this
display of culture and twisted commercialism. We presume that we can filter
out the silliness, but nevertheless the attachment is formed whenever a thought
occurs in response to stimuli. Gradually we are pulled away from the mutuality
of the species, and slowly we are trained to adhere to the survival-of-the-
fittest mentality, and slowly we lose the balance and shared responsibility
because we begin to respond to the evolution of decades through the medium of
the TV which has portrayed those decades.
We cannot presume that our species will remain the same when we are interacting
with new mediums of communication and machines, including this very computer
upon which these words are read -- and typed. Every tool brings benefits and
dependencies, but no tool has ever had the power of television to shape the
mind without a context based upon a false here-and-now reality. What you see
on TV is somewhere else, and may have happened at some other time. Or it is
many different points of time in the past that get chopped up into a final
version. When you read, your mind produces its own mental imagery and
thoughts. The combined video-audio experience that is television and
cinematography however provides everything, so there is no development of
mental imagery and thoughts, only an emotional reaction to images and thought
packages, and a memory of what you saw and heard, not what you thought about or
Did I answer the question?
|Monday, 7 March 2005 at 14h 23m 17s|
The Law of cultural development
Citizens, denizens of urbanity, bucolic holdovers of rural
time to reveal the Law of Cultural Development.Who we are as a people is
directly proportional to what we pay attention to regularly, and how the
rewards of society are distributed.
That being said, you have to ask : what justice and sanity makes it reasonable
to assign wealth to the luck of birth? This is not really a moral question.
It is not that it is bad to be rich. There is nothing wrong with having money
and living well without concern for food, clothing, and shelter. But why
should this just be the luck of birth, and what happens when the surplus funds
get used to gather more money?
Money is created to represent all the wealth obtained and transformed from the
Earth's natural resources. Essentially the number of people in the world or
community who desire or need the resources exchange the bills of commerce. So
when large amounts of it accumulate into smaller groups this means that more
people have less and less control over their own well-being, and are subject to
the whims and desires of those who control the way the resources are
We assume that wealth is a reflection of success and hard work, which is often
true. The majority of millionaires work very hard for their funds, and are
just as often only a bad sequence of events away from bankruptcy. Wealth is
not in itself a reflection of unworthy accumulation. Those who take on larger
responsibilities, those who are responsible, reliable, and who work hard should
be well paid. But what does it mean when the rewards of financial accumulation
also accrue to those who gain control of funds to where they are no longer ever
in danger of bankruptcy because they are too large to fail. Billionaires do
not go broke.
Our society does not like to discuss the issue of power. Instead we gloss over
the issue with the automation of the free market economic system. All those
who are wealthy have obtained that status because they were efficient providers
of goods and services, or they were talented and determined. But what if we
speak of men who are talented at duplicity and manipulation that are determined
to accumulate more power? These are the nascent beginnings of aristocracy.
And what happens when the developing aristocracy decides to collectively
relinquish any responsible relationship with the society, building gated
communities from which they occassionally leave while being driven by a
chauffeur. This is not a process that develops over a couple of years, but
rather after a couple of generations.
The final analysis is this : there is equal danger between a bureaucratic
corrupt government as there is the rise of an aristocratic order. There is no
difference between the one and the other when the aristocracy does not live the
lives of the common people. Despotism is not just something government
creates, as certain liberterians would ascribe as their root philosophical
understanding. Despotism occurs when power accumulates in the hands of a few.
The sycophants and psychopaths who decorate the enterprises of dictatorship are
the same people, whether they are exploited by political hacks or the
aristocratic regime of a few plutocrats.
|Wednesday, 2 March 2005 at 9h 7m 48s|
Mind fiends who call themselves righteous
The fiends of mind-warped opinion are just power addicts and
They hire themselves into huge pyramids of talking smack addicts, all of them
bent on kissing ass and playing mind-games while each they try to claw over one
another, smiling and high flying when in the spotlight.
They are like high school debate club addicts. They don't care about right and
wrong. They confuse manipulation with reason because all they care about is
victory and money when they dip in and out like glossy sharks waiting for the
precise moment to strike, pondering the slithering words which will prepare the
victim for the stiletto.
So when you pose heartfelt and reasonable objections that have solid details,
don't expect them to listen trying to understand your point of view. That is
you. Not them. They are sniffing for weaknesses. They are quickly throwing
up objections like fighters in a boxing ring. They see having a discussion as
a combat which results in a victory, rather than an event which results in a
common understanding; or as some moment to play their cards right, to put forth
the smoke-screen amongst their other fellow confabulators; or plot with them.
Oh, they are the first to denounce, ridicule, and vilify the philosophy of what
they perceive as an opposition because it is the core of their believe system.
Ask them what they believe in and notice that the result is not rooted in
details, or is often stated with a "I just don't believe that..." They run
their mouths on and on about being "fiscally conservative" or "fair-minded" but
look the other way at wasted money and corruption.
It's all talk. Nestled next to their strident hypocritical, self-righteousness
is an amorphous ambiguity, able to twist and distort every argument, even lie,
because the goal is victory not understanding.
These people are dangerous, but the self-promoting sycophants are allowed
mouthpieces of vast influence. They sit around (and go around) acting like
their rampaging banter is the equivalence of insightful conversation. They
beam a pompousness that resembles children proud of their new "poopy," and
every moment for them is another re-enactment of that time they took their
first shit. And really, they hate themselves. Which is yet another, darker
reason for their vigilance over victory. They have to win because the
consequences are but too dire. They talk the talk because they have to tell
themselves that others have problems, and that that which they denounce is not
And they will keep talking until some "big daddy" kicks them where it hurts,
whence they transform into pitiful and driveling, like slime gladly able to
still cling to the brick wall. Yes it is slime that is holding the attention
of an audience of fools. They have merely put up the illusion of themselves,
and the audience believes.
|Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 19h 6m 8s|
Okay like, itís really quite simple, you know, but, well, this might
take a while to explain. You see. It all started sometime in the past,
although I canít offer you any particular date, or specific time when the said
event occurred. Rather, it was just something that all of a sudden became
realized. The thing was there all along, and still is, always will be, and so
on and so on, and so on. Then, one day Ė or one moment Ė the realization of
what the thing was or could be appeared like a sudden burst of fire, and the
mind burned with the seething realizations, millions of beads of water pounding
upon the stone, falling from the waterfall 200 feet above.
This thing is called life. You cast yourself into the unknown
thoughtlessly, completely driven by the habits of sheer will. Every now and
then a little morsel of understanding appears, every now and then there are
painful breeches when we have to try and understand what is quite non-
understandable. During these situations there are no words which completely
describe anything, only emotions which donít make any sense. In our often
deranged irrational attempts we use to feebly try to solve that which is
unsolvable, because these are great wounds and take time to heal, and crying is
the only way we know how to heal.
I said it was really that simple.
Crying is the only way we know how to heal.
|Tuesday, 8 February 2005 at 0h 1m 58s|
How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a lightbulb?
There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its' conditions are improving
Any reports of its' lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the
There is no shortage of filament.
That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the
Why do you hate freedom?
|Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 9h 23m 41s|
Freedom-loving blind bats
Listening to Republicans speak of themselves, you get
party is one big love-fest when they refer to themselves as "freedom loving."
But since "freedom is not free" then where, I ask, is the love or the freedom?
Freedom loving. What a joke. Oh they love freedom alright. Let me explain.
They love freedom so much that senior citizens are not free to purchase cheaper
drugs from Canada. When asked why, the representatives of the "freedom-lovers"
say that imported drugs are not safe, but fail to mention that many of the
drugs drug companies sell are imported from Canada. So you can only import
drugs if you are a corporate Drug company.
Ah, ha. Freedom for corporations and wealthy investors only.
Oh and freedom is so loved that they bribed Republicans on the floor of the
House to get the Medicare rape bill passed. Republican legislators were not
free to vote as the wanted, and had to have their arms twisted by Dennis
Hastert and Tom DeLay for 3 hours.
So Republicans in Congress are only free to do as the leadership tells them, or
they get the cold shoulder and are ostracized.
And then the Bush administration was free to lie about the real costs of the
medicare rape bill. The head administrator who audits medicare was threatened
with his job if he revealed the true costs. Tax payer money was used to make
news videos with fake news reporters speaking gloriously of the great new
medicare bill. This is apparently called freedom of speech, but all of it is a
grand hoax to bilk the tax-payers and sell our nation to the front corporations
controlled by wealthy investors.
And don't give me that "everyone can buy stock and invest in corporations"
nonsense, because although true, you can't compare a small $500,000 investment
to a trust fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There are millions of
small investors vulnerable to the big players, no different than the millions
of consumers vulnerable to the big corporations.
And because "freedom is not free" we have to have military excursions into
choosen middle eastern nations that have lots of oil. We have to lie about the
reasons and promote forged documents about non-existent yellowcake Uranium
sales from Nigeria, because freedom also included the freedom to lie. And
freedom is no doubt being installed now by the massive fire-sale of Iraq to
corporations and administration cronys who hired imported cheap labor and
export profits without reinvestment. Corporations who provided supplies to our
freedom-fighters were not able to provide adequate supplies, but were free to
skim off their profits -- since freedom is not free you see.
And elections are free when we call them free, ignoring all of the polling
booths that are bombed and all of the trade union leaders that are getting
assassinated by "operatives." Because the people are free only when they
accept their corporate masters, and when they pull the levers to choose for one
of the acceptable government candidates. Is it important that only 50% of the
population will vote? Is it important that Iraqi's had to register to vote
before they got their food rations? Not according to the Republican ink-
fingers who blame our bad foreign policy on
the "insurgents","terrorists", and "dead-enders" who hate freedom -- or at
least the current version. The people are free to drink untreated water, to
breathe the radiation and the toxic waste created by the military bombs dropped
from the freedom-loving Americans. We killed more people in Iraq because of
the war and the 10 year economic boycott than Saddam did as the freedom-hating
dictator. But freedom is worth the cost I'm sure. And after all, freedom is
not free, right?
This is the freedom to exploit and profit at the expense of the localities
being exploited, who get to watch the profits made from their resources leave
the nation to freely find other investments and make more profit.
These freedom-lovers are oxymorons. They blind themselves and sing hymnals of
praise about a glorious cause, using words that have no underlying contextual
validity. There are plenty of killers who justified their murdering with
convoluted self-serving reasoning.
Which freedom are they talking about? The freedom to lie, cheat, murder, and
|Tuesday, 11 January 2005 at 20h 43m 20s|
It's a very small world, very small, smaller than the cubicle into which we
place ourselves day after day, rotating from one function to another, looking
at the world as if through a microscope, with one eye closed, and the other
focused on a tiny pinprick.
Across this world, we carve tiny traces of ourselves that disappear and become
non-existent almost as soon as they occur, and everything seems to fall upon us
at once, so that we only remember but one little dot on the map, one little
morsel in the vast ocean of existence. It is only the mind, and the reinforced
sycophancy of fawning others which might convince us otherwise, but
nevertheless we are still as relatively insignifigant as hapless dust in the
workings of the universe. Would that we led a nation to war and back, we are
still merely a mortality of flesh with a soul. Nothing more, nothing less.
And thus we seek stability, ritual, and routine, because we cannot often bare
ourselves to such existential nihilism. The nestling of absolute nothingness,
an abyss without anything we might care to recognize, is not comforting insofar
as is the white noise which appears on the television when there is no signal.
|Sunday, 9 January 2005 at 18h 15m 12s|
The watching television disease
Ladies ... and .... gentlemen .... do not miss tonight's world premiere showing
of The Spice is Life, that great all American TV show where you get to
waste your life sitting on your bottom staring at the oncoming sounds and
changes in light patterns, all of it falling into and across your mind, giving
you the freedom to see and hear, rather than perceive and listen.
The spice of life is somewhere on the hundreds of stations out there, cheap
laughs and morality plays dancing before you with nary an effort on your part.
All you have to do is have a pair of eyes and ears, but you don't need to use
them, because your brain automatically takes over once the mind is inundated
with sound and light, that comes so rapid and swift that you don't have time to
decide what to filter out. But relax, your subconscious id takes over and does
that for you.
Train yourself to become accustomed to being entertained, rather than
entertaining yourself. Sit there and watch, instead of developing skills and
knowledge. Then, convince yourself that you are becoming wise and intelligent
by whatever the TV brings to your palette. Learning, you see, occurs when you
pay attention to the filtered presentation of light and sound. We learn to
glean knowledge from these external imprints of light and sound, rather than
pull from our own internal resources an image or mental association. When you
read, your mind produces an image; when you watch your mind only stores a
replica or a reminder that the image existed. When you hear, your mind
interprets, but you don't get to ask questions or reinterpret from a medium
that allows no interaction. There is no feedback or interaction possible from
And when we get used to the habits of storing incoming lights and sounds, when
we get used to non-interactive learning, we become non-responsive automatons.
|Friday, 7 January 2005 at 19h 41m 45s|
You know, I was reading a book review in the New Yorker earlier this week. The
author, Jared Diamond, has written another anthropological treatise that will
probably rival his prior masterpiece, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
According to the review, Mr. Diamond has taken up the theme of society's
collapse as the result of environmental exhaustion. He uses the two examples:
one of the Nordic Vikings who inhabited Greenland in the early part of the 2nd
millennium, and the Easter Islanders who chopped all of their trees down and
thus extincted themselves. The Nordic immigrants could not culturally adjust
to the Greenland environment. Proud Nords insisted on raising crops and
raising livestock, refusing to eat fish, which were endlessly abundant, thereby
exhausting the land and resulting in the elimination of the Nordic settlement
by the middle of the millennium.
Man is an inbred creature, intra-mentally associated with the taboos,
blindnesses, and impressions of those with whom one has shared a common
existence. Man also tends to derive his self-esteem and his sense of peace
from that amorphous ambiguity of the fellow man and the community. A shared
language relates the everyday existence within sub-groups of the species.
In the modern world, we exist as parts of a worldwide human machine, but we
still understand ourselves and our roles in that machine within and not removed
from the context of our experience with the machine. And since we live in such
an anonymous world, the idea of the human community as something as alien and
unknown as a machine indicates our detachment, our feelings of dependence, and
a fear of helplessness because each of us has to perform some role within the
huge division of labor on the planet. We are not self-reliant farmers or
tribal groups who can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves without the need for
grocery stores, without the need of gasoline for the automotive commutes, and
not spending 3 or 4 hours a day shopping and accumulating stuff at various
stores and malls. And whereas tribal groups were on intimate life-long terms
with the members of their community upon whom they depended, modern man has
only an icon of an anonymous someone to thank for all the conveniences of
modern living. In more simpler times about 100 years ago, before the rise of
the financial giants called corporations, this was much less so than it is
now. We live within an inbred philosophical reality.
Another book I picked up (or rather found in a box by the door to the faculty
room) concerned how to make money on the stock market. On the cover poised two
confident looking men with arms folded across their chest, and a slightly
smirking, self-assured grin. Ah, yes, making money on the stock market, or
rather, reducing our role as members of the community into a small cell wherein
we join mutual societies called mutual funds for the promise of mutually making
money. Adduced with a simple notion of cause and effect, profit becomes the
sole importance of the social network. The human machine thus charts and
statistically analyzes itself, hoping to manipulate the rhythms of up and down,
the gyrations of buying, selling and supplies that is at the very utmost
central root is just a representation of all that is grown, mined, and built
on and-or from the earth. The planet earth is the medium used by which
man manipulates other men and profits so as to hope to obtain the lavish fruits
of the great extraction system that mankind has created. Earth has been rather
passive so far, but this will not last. The society of modern man will also
collapse because of the pressures of a decimated environment.
This alone is, to me, what is so damn annoying about those who espouse
the "business friendly" argument which excoriates tree-hugging
environmentalists and impish weak libr'uls who live off of government salaries
and grants because they can't hack it in the "real world."
Like, grow up. Don't equate anti-business with being smart about the
environment. Some people might want to ride the hog and burn the house down,
but then you give a 14 year-old one million dollars and no responsibility and
see what happens. And that thing called "the real world" is ambiguous and
ephemeral, and probably is just a mirror image of the self's illusion.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS