Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Friday, 28 January 2005 at 16h 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
|Wednesday, 12 January 2005 at 3h 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.
|Monday, 10 January 2005 at 1h 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.
|Saturday, 8 January 2005 at 2h 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.
|Friday, 7 January 2005 at 1h 19m 28s|
Sorry Y'all. I've been mentally and spiritually on vacation. I will reappear
again in a couple of days.
|Wednesday, 15 December 2004 at 5h 21m 30s|
The crisis as a hoax
Okay, so now we have a plan to offer younger workers a small portion of their
paycheck towards private wall street accounts, as if this is a solution to the
problem of the system running out of money by 2052 (according to the
Congressional Budget Office.) That's 48 years from now.
Its what the letter of the law states which our congresspersons never read that
is important. All this hype is just the perfunctory ritual excuse that is
supposed to justify what they intend to write insidiously and esoterically into
the thousand page booklets that are called Congressional legislation. Most
Congresspersons (probably almost all) do not read the legislation over which
they vote. Some read what they need to and depend heavily on their staff to
cull and filter the enormous body of correspondence and legislation which
really is too much for anyone person to handle. Some persons know how to
create a staff, some persons accept the suggestions on whom to hire on their
staff to the extent that the staff sets the agenda.
So these fools have a great idea that is meant to be a show of decisive
action. You see, we have a "crisis." At least the corporate media outlets all
say so, blaring dramatic sounds and colorful, prominent banners. Follow the
parade. Borrowing one trillion dollars called "transition costs," the idea is
meant to offer younger workers the right to divert a portion of their payroll
taxes into private wall street accounts. But no one can explain how this
diversion of funds from the general insurance fund is supposed to help the long
term stability of the Social Security System.
Oh, but in 10 years the "efficiency" will more than pay for the initial cost
in "savings." Huhn? Where are these savings going to come from? The only
problem with social security is the need to secure a large stable source of
funds. The costs of having social security are only 2 percent. What the hell
do efficiency and savings have to do with this defunct, inert notion of
privatization? They mean profitization. Someone wants to make some more money
off you, and promise that you will make more money too.
People confuse insurance with profitable investments. The idea behind the
Social Security Insurance is to spread the costs of society over the entire
population. Unfortunately, political reality necessitated certain
modifications. All persons are taxed at the same rate of 7.5%. But this
percentage does not apply to the entire amount of income. Only the first
$87,500 is taxed. So if you have a collective income of 2 million dollars, you
only pay 7.5% on the $87,500 ($6562.50.) The rest of that income ( 2 million
minus 87,500) is not taxed!!! That is a difference of $143,437.50 in
Now you might say that is great. A tax savings of $143,437.50. But the choice
before us is not as simple as applying the same tax percentage. If the cap on
the percentage was raised, the percentage could be reduced. The tax on those
with more than $87,500 would increase but not by nearly as much, because the
tax percentage could also be reduced to say 4 percent. The vast majority of
tax payers would get a 3.5% tax break.
The idea of insurance is simple. If a large group of people each pay a small
amount of money into a general fund, all of the needs of the group can be met
because the averages will spread out over time. Thus if 140 million people
each pay 5 percent of their income into a general fund, we as a society can pay
for all of the needs we need. Despite the Neo-Hobbesian social-darwinists
belief in a society free of government meddling, mandkind has always taxed the
citizens to perform functions necessary for the whole. In primitive tribal
society, members had understood responsibilities and duties to the group. In
our polyglot, anonymous social order, we form a government to perform and
coordinate these necessary tasks.
Diverting funds to some other fee-based system removes from the pool those
citizens who feel economically secure. This defeats the ability to spread the
costs because since the numbers involved are reduced, the burden per person
What's more, because social insurance is not run for a profit, the overhead
(the expenses above the deposited funds) is only 2 percent of the total funds.
In private accounts, the fees and the services can run as high as 35% of total
funds. But you didn't think their is any altruism in private-minded investment
brokers. Greed can pretend to be mutually beneficial, but then, it is you who
provide the funds. The reality is that greed means little when beset by those
who have the upper-hand. You are just depositing money in an account and
trusting that the movers and shakers are gonna send you a fat check every
month. As history shows, there really is no guarantee. Through no fault of
your own, you could be the poor fool who suffers losses on his investments,
then goes bankrupt and winds up homeless at age 62. Or the sad one who loses
an arm in an accident, and can't work. Or the man who suddenly becomes blind
at age 31. Or the woman (man) with children whose husband (wife) suddenly
We don't want to leave the care of our children, the injury to our workers, and
the retirement of our older persons to chance. As a society we tax ourselves
to provide the funds for these services. We must get the debate away from one
that is either for or against the system as a whole, and start focusing on the
best way to spread out the financial burden on our taxpayers.
Don't be misled by the subtle propaganda of the profiteers who wish to
dismantle the system for their own gain, nothing else. What a shame that such
small minded fools even offer such a hoax and actually call it reform.
|Friday, 10 December 2004 at 5h 5m 50s|
The Bushites and the con game
It has been some weeks now since I last wrote a letter to the editor. I did
not bother to respond to the four or five letters of criticism that followed
that last letter. There was no need to defend myself to persons who would
never listen, given that how they responded was indicative of their ignorance.
You cannot reason with people who like to believe they've made up their mind
about something and cannot admit that they might not be accurate or correct in
They believe differently, and they can't explain how or why, but you who have a
valid disagreement are still wrong, simply because you don't believe the same
thing. It is really that simple.
One thing I have learned in the last 10 years : you do not have to respond to
criticism. The truth, wherever it may be, cannot be proven. That might be
hard to accept, but in the realm of ideology, proof is whatever you cling to
that justifies what you want to believe. Occassionally, the weight of evidence
causes the roof to cave in, but when the capacity to believe what you want
still exists, people will take the evidence that points in the chosen
direction. Some of us don't like the shit to stack too high before we start
cleaning house; the rest of us are just full of shit. Accept this, without
emotional reaction, and move on.
That being said, I am still amazed at the silly audacity of what suffices for a
rebuttal. One man, named Steve Smith lambasted me because I attached my public
title. He commented that he stopped writing letters but decided he'd make an
exception for me. Funny that Mr. Smith is actually a regular letter writer,
who only 2 weeks ago published another, in what was probably his tenth this
year (out of 52 issues, 20 percent.) Me, I've sent 2 all year, and both were
One fellow said I was a perfect example of why public schools are destroying
education, and then said that he would vote no the next time a public vote on
school bonds was held. I thought that was funny.
I was told how off base I was. One of the writers mentioned the Buffalo 6 in
rebuttal to my statement that "not one conviction" has occurred against any
terrorist despite being held in Guantanamo for 2 years. If only this writer
had done a google on the "Buffalo 6" and he would have found that the
conviction was thrown out. This writer no doubt watched the puffery on
corporate television and thought he got the real scoop. When the television
that brought him his reality stopped telling him the story, he kept that
initial vision of reality in his mind, frozen like a 2 year old steak in the
freezer. And still he wants to cook me that steak and call it substance.
The criticism I have concerns the way the Bush Administration is handling
these terrorists. Why do real terrorists like Saudi's get to leave the
country without inspection, but we quickly arrest 6 fools in Buffalo who happen
to be in a mosque that was used by a terrorist agent as a recruiting ground.
Why does the Bush administration blow the cover of 2 (yes, not one but 2)
undercover agents who are involved in rooting out terrorists? Why does the
Bush administration spend 200 billions on the Iraq debacle, but nothing, not
one cent, on beefing up protection in the United States? Why aren't the ships
and plane cargo inspected? Why aren't the nuclear plants guarded?
If indeed, this truly is war on "terror," how come the homefront is not
protected? Why are the FBI and homeland security using the Patriot Act to
investigate peaceful groups that have nothing to do with "terrorism" when that
was the reason why the Act was passed in the first place?
Remember those Anthrax letters addressed from Iraq. The entire Congress had to
vacate because of those letters.
Another man accused me of being mean and out of my mind. He couldn't believe
that what I said might be true, like it is somehow my fault that he is not
paying attention. All you have to do is watch the TV and believe your armchair
philosophy is applicable despite historical fact. But then facts are just
concoctions of the vast liberal conspiracy that owns 95 percent of all media.
This other man called me a mean spiteful person, and then said I called him
names when I said "this is stupidity and arrogance" while referring to the Bush
administration policy. The Bush con is that Iraq is due to a "failure of
intelligence" which is a pile of shit higher than a Haight-Ashbury hippie. The
Bush gang did what they wanted to do because they have a vast hubris of
infallibility, aka stupid arrogance. I was not referring to people in the
audience of readers as "stupid and arrogant." Anyone with a fair mind could
understand this, but this is just the ole subconscious ploy of moral
distraction. You can't handle the argument, so you castigate the appearance.
Or as I've heard on the Bill James show, "If you have the facts on your side,
you bang on the facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you bang on
|Friday, 3 December 2004 at 2h 32m 19s|
Today's daily philosophical ramble
These days we live in a world of an arrogant and powerful aristocracy. There
are plenty of fawning followers who collectively make cconsiderably less money
than any ten of the dominant families. There are plenty of the less than
powerful who still hope for fame, wealth, or power but are content to merely
get by day after day. Sometimes power is obtained through psychological means,
whereby one person guilt-trips another, knowing there is line of control in
that small special domain. Wealth by itself is not necessarily the creator of
a baneful mentality, much as fame does not necessarily accrue to those who are
truly talented nor to those who strive -- although the loudspeakers of
corporate media do tend to fawn over those who are willing to inflate
themselves like bouncing balloons for the national cameras.
No it seems that mentalities are randomly dispersed among the panorama of
wealth and power. There are massive accumulations of interacting members of
the rich and powerful, but this is merely because those who are willing to
strive and sacrifice their integrity will tend to fill the ranks of the rich
and powerful, unless they are there by birth. Of course there are countless
exceptions, but the exceptions do not defy the averages. This is the inherent
state of mankind at this stage of population growth. This is the result of a
world in which anonymous people perform tasks and control aspects of life and
society in total ignorance of the lives of those whom they affect. A certain
perspective of one's rank and position becomes more relevant than the actual
reality of that rank and position, which is the breeding ground for hubris and
|Thursday, 2 December 2004 at 2h 39m 34s|
Steam that consciousness
Sometime in the future you should try this. Don't bother to think
words flow out of your stream of consciousness, and just allow yourself to
ramble. The point is to not care what words you say, and just let yourself
grab whatever words float to your mind.
The amazing thing is that your sub-conscious will innately create something.
Try it. Write down what words come to mind if you care to do so. Once the
mind is allowed to flow like an opened faucet, the mind is automatically
spilling what is quite natural to its existence. This is the idea behind
meditation. Your mind produces thoughts automatically. You don't have to try
to have a thought, because the mere process is itself a thought. What you call
yourself is nothing but a long history of compiled thoughts by which you have
come to understand both yourself and the world in which you exist, albeit
affected by the other phenomenom and people in your immediate environment.
So when you let it rip, the results can be rather interesting, and often
The blue coat was next to a bird which had nothing but songs to sway the abuse
of a hot sun that was the afterthought of some long extravagent winter when
everyone was next to impoverishment in their relationship with the ethos of
-- you see what I mean.
|Thursday, 2 December 2004 at 2h 25m 31s|
That word, socialism, why is it misused?
One thing that really irritates me occurs whenever I
someone of self-proclaimed conservative bent misuse the word "socialist." The
word is usually uttered in the pejorative sense, in order to disembowel
something they dislike by hinting about something akin to a government
bureaucracy . You talk about nationalized health care, and the idea is labeled
as "socialism" or "socialistic."
Honestly however, I don't think such a person really understands what the
word "socialist" means, or what "socialism" is -- and is
not. And what then, could the adjective "socialistic" be, in this already
That's why I think it is high time for a spotlight on definitions.
First, let's go look up the words socialism and socialist in a dictionary.
How about dictionary.reference.com/
1.)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.)The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism
and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
1.)An advocate of socialism.
2.) A member of a political party or
group that advocates socialism.
3.)Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
4.)Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a
socialist party or political group.
so·cial·is·tic adj. Of,
advocating, or tending toward socialism
The key component here is the first definition, by which
"socialism" is a"social organization in which the means of
producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized
government that often plans and controls the economy. "
How is nationalized health care in anyway related to a centralized
government planning and controling the economy? Here we are just talking about
paying for the medical treatment of all the citizens of the United States with
taxes, sort of like a national insurance premium that pays the medical bills.
The only thing centralized is the bank account where the funds are kept. All
decisions are made by doctors and hospitals across the country. Government
regulators and auditors ensure safety and pursue fraud, not plan or control the
Calling nationalized health care "socialistic" is equally
flawed, because it is not "tending" towards centralized planning.
Local communities make these decisions in conjunction with the hospitals,
doctors, and government officials. This is how America works. People are
invited to discuss what is in the best interest of the community, and decisions
are made. Sometimes this simply makes economic sense. All of us, companies and
businesses and workers and citizens, all of us are held hostage by insurance
companies and the privatization of health care for profit.
If people want to say this is somehow
socialistic, then I think they really only indicate a certain disposition
favoring profit and individualism at the expense of the society as a whole.
People are not fully comprehending the meaning of the words they use. They
are reacting emotionally and using words like a philosophical salve for
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS