Political Issues

More ModicumThe MuseWritingThe ForceT-ShirtsMign DesignsPolitixSex and DatingAddictedBooks 'n' MoviesMobileGood SportCrimeAbortion?ThoughtsQuotablesMirthyHealthLinguiniCompootersAll About MeDisclaimerResumé

Abhortion California, State of NEW Capitalism and Greed Clinton's Penis Elian Gone-zales Foreign SpOil Gas Boycott... Not! Hiroshima: Necessary? NEW Iraq NEW Legalize Them? Middle East Mayhem On Defense One Nation Under The Gun Pledge of Aggregiance NEW Taxing U.S. Bull in a China Shop What makes a Demo or Repo? Why Do They Hate Us? NEW

photo info

Pledge of Aggregiance NEW

I pledge allegiance to the republic
of the United States of America
And to its principles, for which we stand
One nation, under our constitution
indivisible, with liberty, justice and equality for all.

That is much more accurate.  You can't pledge allegiance to a flag anyway, because it's only colored cloth, it doesn't do or say anything, it only stands for or represents things, and whatever those things are is what we should pledge allegiance to.  And OF COURSE "Under God" is unconstitutional.  It violates the basic principles this country was founded upon, including the freedom from state-sactioned religion, as summarized by founding father Thomas Jefferson: "to erect a wall of separation between church and state."  (See more separation quotes from founding fathers.)

But having the state specify that all children confess belief in God also violates basic religious principles.  The most basic of these are: 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor.  These are the first two commandments of Judaism, also accepted by Christianity and Islam (The "Big 3," in addition to most other religious or spiritual practices, such as the Wiccan "Do no harm," and the basic "Golden Rule" of "morality," as believed in by most Atheists, Agnostics and just whoever. Even L. Ron Hubbard of Dianetics says "However you would like others to treat you, so treat them" -the only problem is, he pretends he thought of it first).  According to Jesus and other people, the second commandment is "like unto" the first. In other words, you love God BY loving your neighbor (they do not contradict, and the first one never overrides the second). This also refers to the fact that they are similar; they both contradict selfishness.  The basic evil of humanity and the cause of all conflicts is selfishness. Loving God (or whatever you want to call it) and loving your neighbor are the answer, the opposite of SELFishness, the contradiction for the basic confliction, the fix for all conflict.

Loving your neighbors as yourself does NOT include forcing your beliefs on them, by force of law or any other way.  If you're a Christian, would you want your child to sit in a classroom where everyone stood up and said, "One nation, under Allah" (even though that's actually the same as God), or "One nation under Dianetics"?  Or, "One nation under Satan"?  If you wouldn't like it, then DON'T DO IT TO THEM.  How utterly simple and undeniable is that?  Can you not grasp that, you hypocrites?  It baffles me that any Christian would want to violate God's prime directive.  God wants volunteers, NOT mindless repetition by force or coercion. Such manipulation is not only worthless, it's counterproductive because it builds resentment instead of understanding (which is the very reason it's prohibited in the first place).  I repeat this over and over again for all politicoreligious discussions involving Christianity: Jesus Christ NEVER EVER EVER tried to make anyone do anything by force of law.  Trying to do so, in violation of the prime directives, is a vile form of heresy.  It is inconceivable to me that anyone would even consider it.   Grow...the...fuck...up.   How about, "one nation under Love Your Neighbor"?  That same type of hypocritic mentality is part of "why they hate us."
 

Why Do They Hate Us? NEW

• What's not our fault is the fact that some of "they" are fundamentalists who will only allow their own way of thinking.  Since we live on a planet of at least 4 billion people where no two think exactly alike, the idea that only one way is right is way ridiculous.  This is why all fundamentalism, whether it's Muslim, Christian, Jewish or "other," is inherently evil.  If I passed a law requiring you to love me, how stupid is that?  Same with people who want "prayer in schools" -- whose prayers?
• The people without will always tend to blame the people with for their problems, or at least resent them and try to take them down.  (But if you believe in an inherent sense of fairness, why is that always so wrong?)
• The key for U.S. is not to accept blame for what isn't our fault, but to definitely accept reponsibility whenever we violate the very values we stand for.  If we betray our own beliefs, then what are we fighting for?
• "Freedom" must NOT be confused with "greed" and "exploitation."  Freedom for the few to realize their dreams at the expense of the many doesn't count. For instance we are not free to own slaves. If Cuba suddenly became "free," what would happen?  We'd go in and buy everything, and then we'd OWN them. The "market" traps us with its forces, its LAWS of supply and demand, and when WE THE PEOPLE want to make our own decisions, decide our own prices, wages and WORTH, they call us communists or socialists, because greedy capitalist pigs don't like to share, even when the money they make is a result of the work everyone else does. Any money made through the use of a computer, should go directly to the people who made the computer.  It's FREEDOM, not GREEDUMB. :)  In God, not Mammon, we trust.  It's NOT the economy, stupid; it's FREEDOM!

The UGLY:  Info about U.S. of McAmerica crappy foreign policy, hypocrisy, meddling, imperialism, hegemony, murder, death, etc:
A nice little summary op-ed piece at Brown University or Common Dreams or The Boston Globe
Read Brian Willson's many Essays on our involvement all over the world, the history of Palestine/Israel, and read his Bio
A long, thorough, very detailed hegemony timeline, w/ hundreds of links to more info, and more on the politics page from Josh Buermann.
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions, 1945 to the present by William Blum
Uses of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993 by Ellen C. Collier (or view those last two links and more in frames)
U.S. Interventions in Latin America, a concise list by Mark Rosenfelder. And see other interesting stuff on his site zompist.com
Intro to U.S. Involvement in the Middle East on a socialist site with links to other articles
War Crimes in the amazing Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension
American State Terrorism  Talk about tough love! :)  This site is harsh but there's an insane amount of links and info.
Addicted to War: a book and compilation video by Frank Dorrel
A set of links re: bad American Policy at Boycott the U.S.A., including:
    List of Fiendly Dictators we have supported, from Third World Traveller.com
Perhaps that's enough....?
 

Iraq NEW

Middle East Mayhem

The Israelis should be willing to never set foot in Jerusalem again if it would save the life of one Palestinian child.  And the Palestinians should be willing to never set foot in Jerusalem again if it would save the life of one Israeli child. Until that happens maybe we should just leave them alone and let them kill each other off.  Maybe they don't deserve to live. What good is a religion if it can't teach you that? As long as you are pointing the finger at someone else, the three fingers pointing back at you are against the peace process. We can support Israel because they are alone against a slew of hostile Arab countries, but in the peace process we should be for whoever is willing to compromise for peace, and against whoever isn't, no matter what. So love, or die. Which is actually the same choice all of us have to make every day.  NO MORE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS, NO MORE SUICIDE BOMBING, DAMMIT.
 

The State of California, 2003 NEW

In the meantime, read Circus Maximus: Pitiful Gray pleads for sympathy by Marc Cooper,
or see full coverage in the August 15-21 issue of the L.A. Weekly.

The Candidates: 
    See this cool list of LOTS of the candidates with links to their websites (plus other office holders
    and candidates related to 2004 elections) at  PurePolitics.com, "Politics Everyone Can Enjoy."
Ariana Huffington for Governor!   I would vote for her mainly to add weight to the progressive side of things, but Peter Camejo has been around longer and seems to have a more cohesive and time-tested plan.  But God bless her for being a thorn in their side.
Peter Camejo: Green Party candidate endorsed by Ralph Nader.  An excellent choice.  I voted for him in the last election, but it was scary how close Bill Simon came to winning.  The spoiler factor really cripples an open discussion of ideas and alternatives to the two-party monopoly.  Mr. Camejo has been around a long time and knows his facts.  He doesn't hesitate to point out that the rich people in the state pay LESS TAXES than the poor.  I would probably vote for him again, except the risk of Arnold winning is just too horrifying.  Thank God that at least he and Ariana got to be in the debate for a change.
Cruz Bustamente the current Lieutenant Governor would probably be OK; he does have quite a bit of experience.  He seems nice and is relatively low-key.  He gets a lot of his money from Indian gaming though, but it's about time they had a say in something. I will have to vote for him as the only chance of terminating Arnold.
Angelyne  Hollywood poster girl and tour guide
Gary Coleman
Warren Farrell writes books like "The Myth of Male Power" and "Why Men Are The Way They Are"
Larry Flynt
Mary Carey  Porn star. Professional whore. Platfom includes "make lap dances a deductible business expense," allow bars to stay open until 4 am, and supports legalizing ferrets.  It's about time we had some good wholesome fun with this stupid recall.
Ahnold (unofficial site): See opinions from The America Daily (conservative) We Love Arnold.com (slacker) and a Wall Street Journal editorial.
Not really even a Republican.  I simply cannot believe anyone in their right mind would even consider voting for this asshole. He is a joke (in the actual sense, not in the real sense that he might win). Lifting weights, smoking pot, taking steroids, having orgies and turning it into a movie career, then buying lots of stuff, success for SELF, is not the same as getting people to work together. If he wasn't a movie star he would get as many votes as Larry Flynt. Also if he has been considering running for governor for several years, he should have some opinions on something already, but he doesn't.  Plus he's lived here for like 30 years and his English is probably worse than it was when he got here. :)  Hiring Pete Wilson's people sucks, but hiring Warren Buffet is cool since he understands that rich people don't work harder than poor people (Buffet Slams Dividend Tax Cut and Buffet hints Property Tax too low...Prop 13...). Everything out of Arnold's mouth is an empty platitude, sanctimonious cliche or useless crowd-pleasing quote from one of his movies.  Even starting with his announcement on the Tonight Show he was already either twisting words around or not understanding the questions.  He (W. Bush does this too) sounds like he is talking to a class of 5th grade social studies students.  Like Daryl Issa buying the recall, Arnold is just another rich person buying whatever he wants.  Of course, I wish I could too. :)
Garrett Gruener:  Who?  Never heard of him until now.  He's a Democrat, founded "Ask Jeeves."
Bill Simon is ridiculous.  He dropped out and now endorses Arnold, proving what an idiot they both are. :)
Tom McClintock: If you're a Republican I think you have to vote for this guy.  He is honest, has integrity, has a plan, knows what he wants and sticks to it.  He's a true Republican, which means I'll rarely agree with him, but I think his character and intelligence is beyond question.
Peter Ueberroth: probably has a well-reasoned approach, but ideologically I probably wouldn't agree with him. Anyway he dropped out.
See the UCLA Library's 2002 Election Primary or General Election site with links to many candidate websites

Links:
California Budget Project: including Who Pays Taxes in California?
2001 State Tax Revenue from Tax Facts, a project of The Tax Policy Center
State Budget Deficits for 2004 - comparison from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
2002 Cal Facts: State Budget and Major Features of the 2003 Budget (neater in Acrobat.pdf format) from the Legislative Analysts Office
California Independent System Operator: managing the transmission services for California energy
California Voter Foundation: non-profit, non-partisan; improving our voting process through technology

On Proposition 13:
Proposition 13 remains controversial from the San Francisco Chronicle
Has Prop. 13 Reduced the California Tax Burden? from the Public Policy Institute of California
Proposition 13: Some Unintended Consequences commissioned by the PPIC (31 pages in Acrobat.pdf format)
Debate Over Prop. 13 Still Rages from the Sacramento Bee

On Education from edsource.org (in Acrobat.pdf format):
    How California Ranks: the State's Expenditures for K-12 Education
    Teacher Pay in California: Is It Fair?
    A Primer on School Finance

W hew!

Foreign SpOil

Gas Boycott... Not!

U.S. Bull in a China Shop

Taxing

Republicants
So the Republicans say, if you give rich fishermen more money, they can come and hire all the poor people who don't know how to fish.  But the problem is, they are only going to hire the people who already know how to fish, which won't help anyone. Even if they do spend resources teaching people how to fish, the new fishermen are going to have to give all the fish they catch to the rich fishermen, who will then decide how many fish to give back to the new fishermen to feed their families. And they don't want to give them too many fish, or else they might become stronger, sell some and maybe buy their own boat, and eventually put the rich fisherman out of business, because the rich fishermen know they themselves are getting lax because they have it so easy.

Fishing For Dollars
So both the Democrat and the Republican fishermen have an incentive not to help the new fishermen too much. The Democrat fishermen are making the non-fishermen weak, and the Republican fishermen are keeping the non-fishermen down by deprivation and force. So what do we do with those who don't know how to fish?  Somebody has to do something or else we are left with our original dilemma.  Setting up a society where the people with the most fish are rewarded with more fish is NOT the answer.  Maybe the neighbors of the non-fishers could teach them how to fish in their spare time!  That sounds like a great idea, but we know as a fact, from experience, that most people won't and don't, because they are too busy fishing to keep up with fisherman Jones. And what do we do with the people who are too stupid or inept to learn how to fish?  Maybe they can dig for bait. But is that job, although less skilled, inherently worth less than the job the fishermen are doing?  Who decides that? If we let the "free market" decide that, it won't be fair, because people, and groups of people are inherently selfish. And capitalism makes it worse. That is why as a people we have our government redistribute the fish, because the people who actually catch the fish should be able to eat what they need without the owners of the boats taking everything first. Collectively they need each other equally so shouldn't they be equally compensated?

Hiermalarchy
Does the CEO with an MBA work harder than the social worker with a PhD and a caseload of thousands?  Is the Vice President of a widget factory (or an assembly line worker or a bus driver) worth more than a teacher?  Is a cop who risks his/er life every day worth less than a financial manager? Does the VP who gets promoted to partner really work harder than the other VPs?  It's probably a quality they already have, that "something" they're looking for, or they know someone? Should a person who won't work more than 60 hours a week because s/he wants to spend time with his/er kids get passed over for a promotion because the single person will work 80 hours a week? Should the guy who sits next to the girl with the same skills and experience make more than she does?  Should someone be worked so hard they get bronchitis the day before their honeymoon? When the CEO gets fired because the company isn't doing well should s/he get a $20 million severance package? If s/he had to pay 80% of that in taxes would s/he still be getting $4 million for failure? Should a teacher who has used the same lesson plan for 30 years be making more than one with new ideas and a better attitude? Should the best teacher in the school have to be promoted to an administrative position, which s/he isn't as good at, because the pay scale doesn't go any higher?  Gee Wally, I don't know. Sure, sounds fair to me. Get it while you can. Hey, I got mine. It's all about me, me, me. Whoever dies with the most toys wins.  And fuck everybody else.

Born Free?
One big problem is that people who have things seem to think that they earned them all on their own, and that anyone who would just try could do the same thing they did. God likes me more than that malnourished bag of skin and bones with a big fat stomach and flies buzzing around its head that got born in that "other," "third" world. The truth is that all we have to work with, everything we are, we were either 1) born with, or 2) got from our environment, neither of which are within our control. There is nothing else. We can make decisions that have a certain chance of leading to better outcomes, but every decision we ever made comes only from what we already had at that moment. And if we made some earlier decision that led us to that point, that earlier decision was still made from what we already had before that. And it all leads back to before we had the ability to decide. And that leads back to before we were born. We are still responsible for what we do, since nobody else is or can be. But we didn't decide to be exactly who we are. I didn't decide when I was three that I liked music because I knew that it would eventually lead to me being a great rock star, or a poor slob. And I didn't choose to be afraid of everything when I was three so that I would write better songs later. Of course people have been discussing the meaning and existence of self-determination for millennia and it will probably never end. But to think that every human being has an equal chance for success is a delusion borne from selfishness..... for me to poop on!  Saying that poor people are lazy or don't apply themselves is just a way for people to justify their own greed and selfishness. And you can't blame the children for the sins of the parents.  Just because someone turns 18 doesn't mean they suddenly become gifted with the ability to transcend all the influences of their earlier life.

Taxiomatic
We wouldn't need to spend money for the FDA if corporations hadn't been putting crap in our food and refusing to tell us what was in it. We wouldn't need to be searched at airports if fanatic freaks hadn't hijacked planes and threatened violence. We wouldn't need the EPA if corporations hadn't been poisoning us with shit. We wouldn't need the department of labor if corporations hadn't put people to work in seatshops and deathtraps. We wouldn't need the Department of Transportation if the airlines and auto manufacturers wouldn't write off "acceptable losses" in human life to save maintenance costs. Etc, etc., etc. So if you want to say that big government controls our lives, blame the liars, crooks and cheats who caused it all. And blame capitalism because it encourages and even rewards people for those shitty, short-cut behaviors. If money is the goal, we've sold our soul.
 

On Defense

Why do we need to spend this much when it's not to protect our homeland?  Yes it's to protect our MONEY and economic interests. 

Yes, we should help protect people from repression, despotism, exploitation, starvation, mass rape, mutilation and murder anywhere and everywhere (especially here) as much as humanly possible every day starting right now. Yes, build nations. Build communities, lives, economic systems, self-esteem, self-determination, skills, standards of living, etc., etc., etc., build build build and keep building until nobody wants to come here any more because they can pursue life, liberty and happiness right wherever they are.  A FAIR ECONOMY is the answer to poverty (obviously), and therefore crime, drug use, disease, terrorism and every other problem there is.  It won't completely eliminate them all until (if ever) humans become altruistic.  But it is the only way to start.
 

One Nation Under The Gun

So what?
So now that we agree on that, we have to decide whether whatever gun legislation we are considering will actually improve the public safety without leaving us vulnerable to attack from a marauding U.S. or alien military force wielding assault rifles and bazookas, or some poor slob with a pocket knife trying to steal a stereo so they can buy crack.  Sure, it isn't likely, but neither is a plane crash on any given day.  Even the mighty, invincible Roman empire, which had existed in some form or other for probably a thousand years, was eventually overrun by roving barbaran tribes from the north.

All For Nothing
In an online newsgroup about guns I was astounded to find (but should have known) that both the gun control proponents and the gun-wielding proponents think that their "side" is absolutely, completely and totally right and justified by God, and anyone who disagrees is a complete raving idiot without any sense of decency or reason whatsoever, who wants to either ban all guns from the United States forever while the miltary trades theirs in for shovels, or mandate that every citizen carry a gun at all times and teach our children how to use them in kindergarten. This attitude that I am completly right and you are an idiot is more of a problem than any gun or "communist" plot could ever be.  Don't we all want the same thing; the optimal balance between the right to bear arms and the right to be safe from them? You just can't say without qualification that any attempt to regulate, license or limit gun use is going to infringe on rights without increasing safety, until you've actually seen what will happen, or at least thought about it in each case.

Stats'll Tat That
I can almost guarantee statistics will show that wherever there are less guns, there will be less deaths due to guns. Next I need to look around on the Internet and try to find statistics to prove that, or wait I mean show what the truth is, one way or the other.

Toy Guns
The argument is used that bicycles, cars and other types of toys or machines cause many more deaths each year than guns. But the amount of use or enjoyment derived from these other items is way way way higher than that of guns, since guns are only really used to kill (people or animals). Wait don't shoot me; I think here is a major reason why gun proponents differ from gun opponents, and that is that people who play with guns understand the non-lethal uses for them, like target practice and hunting, whereas people who aren't into guns don't "get it." I've seen newsgroup comments from people who said that when their father gave them a gun (for graduation or becoming a teenager or going to kindergarten :) it felt like a right of passage, like an honor. But to gun opponents, that would be like their father giving them a bomb or something: Here son, welcome to manhood, here's a bomb so you can blow the fuck out of somebody. See the difference? I think the two sides have to realize and respect each other's positions before any dialogue should even start. But if it was just the shooting or the target practice that was the fun of it (let's just accept hunting animals as acceptable even though some people think it's stupid), why not just get a BB gun? It is the power of the gun to kill that gives it that feeling of power that makes it worth having. Nobody is really talking about BB-gun control. So in that sense real guns are not the same as a car or a toy at all. And you still need a license and registration to drive a car or motorcycle.

Fun With Guns
For fun let's just take the hypothetical scenario. Say someone comes to rob you, either where you work or at home. There are two possibilities: either they have a gun or they don't. If not, we can reasonably assume that there is still some threat of physical harm from them, either by hands, knife or other weapon. If they have a gun, you can just about forget about getting the drop on them or being able to go for yours without them shooting you first... even if you imagine in your head that you are Bruce Lee or Clint Eastwood. You won't know you'll need your gun until you see the other guy's, and then it will be too late. But overall the two scenarios (they have a gun or not) are really the same. Either way a potential robber has two choices: he could either kill you, or not kill you. Let's just say that without your gun it's 50/50 (which seems way to high). Now let's add your gun into the mix. If you have a gun there are several possible new outcomes: 1) you might get it and stop the robber, turning him over to police, 2) you might kill the robber with it, 3) the intruder might kill you because you tried to go for it; 4) he might stop you from getting it and take the gun from you, to use later or sell to someone who might use it later, who then has the same chance to kill as this guy does; 5) he might find the gun without you trying to go for it and still take it, resulting in the same scenario as just mentioned. Having your gun around also increases the chance that someone will get shot accidentally, either 6) you while cleaning it or in some weird accident or gun malfunction, or 7) your kid or a neighbor's kid for whatever reason, even if they know about gun safety. So we have seven new scenarios because of your gun (not including those involving any number of family or neighborhood arguments that could get out of hand). Only one of these scenarios results in the stopping of a robbery or possibly a murder, and six of the scenarios result in an increased chance of death for someone, 5 of them you and your family, neighbors or relatives, and one the increased chance of death for the robber. One final scenario is that if you use your gun to stop a robber who doesn't have a gun, next time that robber is going to make sure he has a gun, which is the overall scenario of a continuing escalation in firepower until our nation is (even more of) an armed camp. So how does having a gun make things safer?  I mean,don't blow my head off or anything; I'm just asking a hypothetical question here, for God's sake. Nobody wants to take away your right to own a gun. America just wants you to be reasonable about it.

Notice the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the only one they felt they need to justify with a reason: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  So there must have been some inherent argument against it, or why the need for justification?  But it still says that we have an inherent right to bear arms.  Back then, though, we didn't have the massive army we do now to protect us from outside threats.  But I do agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves from our own gevernment in case, for example, George W. Bush decides to take away any more of our rights.  But what good is a gun, even an assault rifle, in the face of tanks and nuclear weapons?  In order to be able to defend ourselves, shouldn't we be allowed to own those too?

And if we believe every individual has the right to bear arms to defend ourselves, shouldn't every nation have the right to bear nuclear weapons to defend themselves against us?  Who are we to decide that Iran can't own nuclear weapons?  If we have that right, so do they.  I think our justification for opposing that is international non-proliferation treaties that most nations have signed.  But we think nothing of violating those when it serves our interests.
 

Elian Gone-zales

Contradicting Their Convictions
Why do people who wanted Elian to stay, go against everything they believe in?  They believe in family values, but they would prefer him to be with cousins instead of his natural father. They believe in freedom but they don't want Elian's father to be free to take him where he wants. And even if he is being coerced by Fidel Castro, they believe in personal responsibility but they don't believe Elian's father should be trusted to make the decisions he has to make given his situation. (Could I second guess them when they make a decision about their kid - "they must not really mean what they say; let's make them do the opposite"?) And they don't believe in letting immigrants in from Mexico but they want Elian to stay.  Conditions for many of the people that are coming here from Mexico are far worse than those in Cuba. At least Elian's father has a job.  Mexico had had the same government for 71 YEARS(!), which was(?) completely corrupt and kept most, if not all of the people's taxes for themselves. People all over Mexico are living in shacks without running water, with no hope of ever getting jobs or anything. (Of course if they would stay and fight things might eventually change but that's not the point.) In fact we shouldn't have even be treating the government of Mexico as legitimate until Vicente Fox came along. So get with it or move to Cuba.
 

Legalize Them?

Abhortion

Capitalism and Greed

Once Removed, Twice Wry
If you are doing something for a doggie treat, you aren't doing it just for doing it. If the reward for an action is not inherent, the reward becomes the goal, not the completed action. And if you can get the reward more easily by performing a contrary, harmful action instead of the intended action, then we're fucked. That is why under capitalism we are living a big fat lie. And when other people are deciding whether you get a reward or not, you don't even "own" your own actions; the reward doesn't depend on what you do anymore, but what the reward-giver thinks about what you do. And you have relatively little control over that, in the long run. In any case, you are at least once-removed from the decision process. And that sucks. You are performing tasks that you didn't decide were necessary, or have any input into what is the best way you could do them, and someone else decides whether you did them right or not, and them decides whether or not to give you anything for doing what you didn't choose how to do in the first place. Goodbye, motivation; hello exploitation and alienation. What else is there to say?

Just Do It
I shouldn't want to get a promotion because I can get more money, I should want to do it because I want a new challenge, or because I'm better at the new task than what I'm doing. Either way the best people should still get the jobs. I should try harder because I want to do it better, to utilize my life, by abilities and skills to the maximum capacity. Our free market system is supposed to accomplish that, but (as discussed above in the discussion of Taxing) since it contains inherent inequities, it doesn't necessarily reward the behaviours that are the most valuable. So we aren't getting the most out of our resources, our society or ourselves.

Capitalsize
But if we take money away as the motivation it will have to be replaced by something else; probably social pressure. Isn't that actually more natural though? We want to do good because it is better for everyone, and for ourselves. And better for everyone is better for us. Instead of better for everyone else means less for me. This is what the golden rule is all about: love our neighbors as ourselves. That way we want to do better for the real reason we should do better, just to do better, to utilize our skills and resources to the maximum, to get the maximum output out of our lives. But peer pressure from the mob mentality can tend to repress creativity and innovation. Unless the society as a whole can value those characteristics just as much. I am the last one on earth who would want conformity to be the law. But if "non-conformity" at its brightest and best actually became "conformity," then wouldn't that be OK with us? I mean we still have to be free to live where we want and make other personal decisions; otherwise as individuals we just become prisoners of the whole, whereas being part of the whole should somehow make us free. Are we truly free as long as we are bound by the chains of capitalism? You can't serve God and money. But is it enough to free us from the external force of money so that we can concentrate on the inherent forces of us?

How Now Cash Cow?
It is difficult to figure out exactly how a non-capitalist system would work, since for example if we are all going to get the same salary, why would anyone try? Why not just quit and make ashtrays out of twigs? In capitalism the fact that nobody wants ashtrays made out of twigs keeps you from trying that as a way to make a living. In a non-capitalist system there would have to be some other reason not to make ashtrays out of twigs - how about because it's stupid? Without capitalism what would keep everyone from quitting and playing golf? The fact that if we all quit to play golf there wouldn't be anyone to make the golf clubs, or the tees or the balls, or mow the grass, that's what. And that is why we should be doing those things. Because if we don't all work hard we will all be living in poverty. That is true even within capitalism, that is, when the poor and disadvantaged aren't being utlized, it is a drag on everything. But in capitalism we are all struggling so hard to keep afloat ourselves that we don't have that muich time to help others, and helping others doesn't reward us with capital, in fact it takes away from the time we could spend "capitalizing."

But outside of capitalism we still need a "punishment" for those who don't work. How about this: we keep everything exactly the way it is, except every single person in the whole country gets the same salary. Forget about a flat income tax; how about just a flat income? But if you don't work at all, after a reasonable time, then your salary is cut to a bare minimum subsistence level, actually you only get stamps or coupons that address your basic needs, with no spending money for anything else. Just like our current unemployment net; and everything else stays the same. Would that work?  At first it wouldn't, since we are used to outside "market" forces exerting the control over us, and we would need to learn to develop our own inherent skills in managing our work and our economy. The same way the Russians have to learn how to live with democracy and capitalism because they were used to having a relatively totalitarian state impose the controls on them. So if we all get the same salary, who is going to clean the sewers? The same people who do it now, because if they really wanted to do something else wouldn't they be more inclined do it now anyway?

On Your Marx, Get What?
Marx had this principle: "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs."  But who is going to decide what each person's needs and abilities are? And an even more key question is: Would we be able to agree on anything? The reason the free market works so well is that all the decisions about prices and salaries are basically made for us. Because having the whole citizenry get together and decide what the price of each item would be, or what each person's salary should be (i.e., what a position is worth), would be very difficult. But if we could control all of it to our advantage, wouldn't that be better? Instead of letting the decisions come from outside of us, from a "system" that we have relatively little control over? For instance, the control the Fed exerts over the economy by being able to adjust the interest rates, etc., some would say is the main cause of our good economy. And the President is granted increased powers during wartime, because having control is a better way to get things done.  The Russian constitution phrases the principle this way, "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his work." Which makes more sense than "needs."  And the whole country doesn't need to agree on the price of each product, but the people who actually make the goods should own them, and decide what price they want to sell them at.  The way this works now is some marketing person in a different office does it, but they should have to ask the workers, the people who actually make everything, what they want to do with the what they've made.

But there has to be something that decides, "You can't quit your 'real' job and be a rock star, but still get the same salary as everyone else, because you aren't good enough." Otherwise everyone would do it. But a certain amount of CD sales at the mutually-agreed upon market price per CD, which would put you over the universal base salary, would be the goal, to show that you were "worth it," which is really not that different than the way things work now. And you'd have to get to that point while working a regular job, just as we do now. There would be no inherent difference in the way the overall process works, but the parameters would be set BY ALL OF US rather than arbitrarily, by the market or on the whims of some executive, who doesn't know your job any better than you do.

The Beat Goes On
Of course economists, politicians and intellectuals are still trying to figure this all out, so I don't know what I expect to do here. I could ramble on forever, so for the moment I'll leave it where it's at. In the meantime, it seems like this system we have in the United States is working relatively well so far, although much less so since economic disparity started to explode during Ronald McReagan's reign (in a hundred years we might look back and realize that Ronnie killed capitalism). Our republican democracy (or democratic republic) has adopted socialist ideas such as social security and medicare in order to take the rough edges off of an inherently unequal free market; and we've utilized communist principles such as common (government) ownership of parks, wildlife reserves, lakes and rivers; profit-sharing and zoning laws, where we feel it suits our needs. Whether we make any drastic changes or not, the key is to realize that our system is not perfect by any means, and to keep trying to improve it any way we can, striving for truth, liberty and justice for all!  Dah dah dah dah, dah dah dah dah dah dah dah, dah. Let's combine the best elements of all the available systems, and not settle for less than the best.

Clinton's Penis

Taking Not Care of Giziness
The job of a Governor or President is primarily a people manager. You don't necessarily pass laws or make rulings about them, but you hook up teams of advisors and appoint appointees, laying the groundwork to push through the party's agendas. Bill, you have to take care of your people, man. Meet with Paula; offer her a job, apologize in private, make a secret settlement; hook Linda up, pretend to include her in the friendly White House comraderie, give her a raise, get her the hell out of there, get your chicks in a row!  Evidently JFK was a lot worse, having pool parties with bevies of Playboy bunnies and hookers (is that redundant?), and he never got caught!  Or when he did he took care of business (even if things were a bit more "au private" and not as on the "up-and-up" as they are now). And this is why what happened reflects badly on Slick Willy; he didn't know how to take care of business. You can't let yourself get dragged into court, talking about stains and arguing over the definition of a blow job on television, on newsbreaks between Sesame Street and Pokemon. It shows that Bill sucks at managing some people some of the time.

Denial on Trial
I didn't vote for Clinton's penis.  But I knew it was attached to him (or so I'd heard).  I don't care if he got a blow job.  But I care that he cheated on his wife. Unless she doesn't.  I mean if they want to have an open marriage for their mutual benefit and stay married to further both their political ambitions, they should be allowed to do that and to say so openly.  But of course our country would never elect them, because God forbid we should do anything out of the ordinary.  Maybe Hillary accepts it, but as the first family I do think it sets a bad example; I mean it's inherently dishonest one way or the other.  If it's two things we don't need more of in this country, it's denial and blaming others for your problems, and that's Bill and Hillary in a nutshell.  I mean, there are millions of people in this country; can't we find at least one who is a good leader AND doesn't lie or cheat, or could at least get the floozy to swallow? I am not going to settle for anything less than the best, which is certainly more than I can say for Bill "ugly is as ugly does" Clinton. Actually I think Paula Jones is kind of cute. But that 's bedside the point.

Nuptual Dis' Agreement
Maybe Hill and Billary have some kind of (un)spoken (and unconjugated) agreement. But overall, next to torture, rape and murder, cheating on someone is about the meanest thing you can do to them. I mean, people kill each other over that shit. Isn't it true that in France, passion is still a legal defense for murder? Didn't you ever see the TV show "Cops"? How can you look someone in the eye after sleeping with someone else, and they don't know? That is cowardly and despicable. How would you feel if your wife/husband or boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on you? What would Bill say, how would he look and how would he feel if Hillary cheated on him? (Like maybe with Janet Reno?) OK maybe that's not the best question in the Clintons' case. But in this day and age of teen pregnancy, AIDS, genital warts and the search for enlightenment in the back seat of a Diahatsu, even the least hint that lying, cheating, denial, blame and a big drycleaning bill are OK cannot be good. There is a stain on the blue fabric of the Presidency, and it ain't from a Big Mac.

Passing the Bar
Now I'm not perfect, but I am not the President. However, this crap is not really impeachable is it? Stupid, maybe. Pitiful, yes. But not impeachable. Especially by self-righteous, partisan opportunists who are just jealous because they couldn't get head from a fat devil with a blue dress on. One HUGE problem with this whole morass, though, is that Bill Clinton lowered the bar just enough for George Bush to creep under it. And that is the worst crime of all.
 

What Characteristic(s) Make Republicans vs. Democrats?

Buh-Bye Now

Photos at top of page:
Left: (I forgot to bookmark the page but I'm trying to find it again.)
Right: Washington, D. C. Government charwoman. 1942. Photographer: Gordon Parks. Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-80024 from the Library of Congress American Memory site.