 |
| Hey! Tax cuts make us lose money! Weird! |
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
More thought on Wikileaks
On June 12th, I discussed the larval stages of the military leaks recently published for public consumption.
I ended my post with the claim that I would support a hypothetical assassination scenario to stop such a leak from occurring. I said that it would be more important to protect the lives of American soldiers than to support transparency, and I still think that.
However: the results of the leak has intensified anti-war sentiment amongst the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. This is a great thing, as that is the first step to ending a political war.
Still, it would have been better to send a copy of the reports to the government a few weeks before publication to allow the time for the necessary changes, if any, in military assets to go into effect. Thus we would have had transparency, and we would have safe soldiers. Everyone wins.
I would still support a criminal trial based on evidence that these leaks caused deaths to U.S. Servicemen and Women. However, if such terrible events do not occur (Please God), then the leaks are a clear victory for the anti-war movement that has been much too slow in building momentum in our ignorant, apathetic, and complacent society.
I ended my post with the claim that I would support a hypothetical assassination scenario to stop such a leak from occurring. I said that it would be more important to protect the lives of American soldiers than to support transparency, and I still think that.
However: the results of the leak has intensified anti-war sentiment amongst the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. This is a great thing, as that is the first step to ending a political war.
Still, it would have been better to send a copy of the reports to the government a few weeks before publication to allow the time for the necessary changes, if any, in military assets to go into effect. Thus we would have had transparency, and we would have safe soldiers. Everyone wins.
I would still support a criminal trial based on evidence that these leaks caused deaths to U.S. Servicemen and Women. However, if such terrible events do not occur (Please God), then the leaks are a clear victory for the anti-war movement that has been much too slow in building momentum in our ignorant, apathetic, and complacent society.
Down with the Electoral College
Massachusetts has joined Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, and Maryland in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It is a sort of work around the Elector System to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationally will become the president. Many other states have had at least one branch of their legislative bodies pass similar laws, and even more did it at least once, but then the progress was pushed back by either delays or gubernatorial vetoes.
So why should we tear down the Electoral College?
That's easy: it's not a Democratic system.
In the Electoral College of today, only the votes of the dominant party in any given state actually matter in the selection of the the president. A Republican vote in Oregon means nothing. A Democratic vote in Alabama means nothing. Only the majority of each state has a say in politics. Some states also manage to become more important than others in the process. The swing-states, like Kansas or Florida, become the true deciders of a presidential election because all the other states are locked in for a specific candidate. Republicans don't come to Washington, and Democrats don't go to South Carolina. Currently, its a waste of valuable money.
Also, the American citizens of Purto Rico, Guam, and our other colonial holdings have no say in the election of the president whatsoever. These votes would also begin to count after the Electoral College was dismissed.
The only argument opposing this movement is the idea that it violates the Constitution as it stands, or that it avoids the amendment process to change the Constitution. However, these people have obviously never read the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that even says the Electors have to vote with the vote of their state citizens. All it requires is that they vote themselves.
Here is the phrase in Article II, Section I:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Then the rules of how the votes were counted was changed by the 12 Ammendment in 1804, but again, only provides information on how the results are submitted and then added together at the capitol. It does not stipulate how the Electors should vote, nor even says they have to look at any of the votes cast by the citizens of their states.
So, a law in a state that mandates how the Electors vote does not violate any part of the constitution. In fact, it is an exercise of State's Rights, supposedly the mainstay of the Republican Party, which ironically is also the most vocal in opposing these types of laws.
So why should we tear down the Electoral College?
That's easy: it's not a Democratic system.
In the Electoral College of today, only the votes of the dominant party in any given state actually matter in the selection of the the president. A Republican vote in Oregon means nothing. A Democratic vote in Alabama means nothing. Only the majority of each state has a say in politics. Some states also manage to become more important than others in the process. The swing-states, like Kansas or Florida, become the true deciders of a presidential election because all the other states are locked in for a specific candidate. Republicans don't come to Washington, and Democrats don't go to South Carolina. Currently, its a waste of valuable money.
Also, the American citizens of Purto Rico, Guam, and our other colonial holdings have no say in the election of the president whatsoever. These votes would also begin to count after the Electoral College was dismissed.
The only argument opposing this movement is the idea that it violates the Constitution as it stands, or that it avoids the amendment process to change the Constitution. However, these people have obviously never read the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution that even says the Electors have to vote with the vote of their state citizens. All it requires is that they vote themselves.
Here is the phrase in Article II, Section I:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Then the rules of how the votes were counted was changed by the 12 Ammendment in 1804, but again, only provides information on how the results are submitted and then added together at the capitol. It does not stipulate how the Electors should vote, nor even says they have to look at any of the votes cast by the citizens of their states.
So, a law in a state that mandates how the Electors vote does not violate any part of the constitution. In fact, it is an exercise of State's Rights, supposedly the mainstay of the Republican Party, which ironically is also the most vocal in opposing these types of laws.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The build up to the Disclose Act; and why the G.O.P. is against it
The Disclose Act is the name given to a piece of legislation that will soon be filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. The act's sole purpose is to ensure transparency in corporate donations to political candidates and special interest groups. It comes as a legislative act to limit the damage of the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporation to donate unlimited funds into the political arena.
Back in January, The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban corporate spending in election campaigns. Their reason: The First Amendment of Free Speech.
The incredibly idiocy of the decision is revealed in remarks made by Justice Thomas at a Florida law school if February.
His logic as follows:
Back in January, The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot ban corporate spending in election campaigns. Their reason: The First Amendment of Free Speech.
The incredibly idiocy of the decision is revealed in remarks made by Justice Thomas at a Florida law school if February.
His logic as follows:
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
I find it incredible that a man who made it to the Supreme Court, a post of supposedly high intelligence, would compare an interest group with a corporation.
An interest group is made of people who willingly join a community for the purpose of voicing their opinions.
A corporation is a group of people who become members for pre-agreed terms of monetary payment for their services. Also, the high administration of a corporation (e.g. the decision making panel) is but a fraction of the organization's population. Like how the common American cannot be blamed directly for the actions of congressmen or presidents, the vast majority of corporation members do not have a voice in how the organization does anything (plus they don't even get to vote like citizens do).
Also, the board of directors, the C.E.O., and whatever elements of high management did not join together to advance an idea. They were hired. That is why they were accepted into the fraternity in the first place. That is their job. When they go home, they are people like anyone else. They can vote like anyone else, they can donate their own money to politicians like anyone else. They already enjoy their First Amendment rights. But when they are at work, they are employees, and they serve the needs of their employer: the corporation.
The corporation is a non-human entity that exists in a sort of robotic state to make more money. The people who control it at the moment only do so because they receive bribes from the system in either salary, bonuses or benefits. The very instant that a controlling member leaves a corporation, cutting him/herself off from the financial incentives that effectively amount to bribery, they no longer will have interest in that corporation's "political opinions." In effect, people who control corporations operate in politics the exact same way that the citizens of Afghanistan currently work in their corrupt sham of a system: "This man gave me four goats, so I will vote for him; unless someone else gives me five goats, of course."
These people are not voicing opinions; they are being bribed to make them by the force of capitalism itself. The same force that has destroyed countless lives without the drop of a tear, the doubt of conscience. A force without ethics, without humanity, and without any interests besides the endlessly fluctuating numbers of economics.
And let us not forget the other members of these supposed "interest groups." What about the vast majority of members of the corporation who do not have a voice in the use of this campaign money? What about the vast majority of members of this group who have no vote, no say in the leadership of their "interest group?" Allowing the leaders of corporations to use corporate money in campaigns is akin to allowing the President of the United States to write up a budget and then not have to get congressional approval (i.e. a dictatorship).
If rich business men want to voice their opinions, they can do it outside of their corporation's revenue stream with their own money, just like every other citizen of our country. They can even group together their money and donate it like anyone else.
However, the decision was made. Likely to go down in history with other such blunders as the Dredd Scott blunder.
Yet there is hope. Obama and the Democrats are pushing forward with legislation that will at least preserve some semblance of dignity in the American political system. In the same manner that political ads must plainly state who created them, this new law will force all campaign donations into the open air. Any special interest group will have to publicly display which corporations donated money to their message and/or cause. Ensuring that voters will know exactly what interests are behind various elements of political propaganda and media.
As is to be expected, the G.O.P. is fighting against it. And as usual, they are using lies to do so.
In advance of the vote, Mr. McConnell on Monday described the legislation as the product of backroom deals. He said the measure “seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment."
This is a lie because the law does not prohibit any sort of ad to be run. It silences no one. It simply makes it illegal for donations to be anonymous. How is it protecting anyone? The Democrats will be equally scrutinized by the law.
Obama makes a keen point:
Anticipating the legislation’s defeat, he said, “Now imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign.”
“Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads -- just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads,” Mr. Obama added. “And you’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010. And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the Disclose Act from even coming up for an up or down vote."
So are the G.O.P. resisting the law because of their tactic of obstructionism? Or do they fear that this law will reveal them to be the corporate sell-outs that they are?
I think it's probably both.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Korean tension boiling; Threats of Nukes
While the news agencies have been keeping it relatively quiet, tensions in the Far East are rising to dangerous levels.
For most the summer, tensions between North Korea and South Korea have erupted over the sinking of a South Korean Warship on March 26th. Since then, investigators of several nations have confirmed South Korea's findings that a torpedo sunk the Cheonan, resulting in the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors. Naturally, all eyes turned to the North as the only possible aggressor. North Korea denies this, and they claim a conspiracy of fabrication.
However, South Korean websites devoted to the tracking of news from within North Korea claimed that a North Korean submarine crew was recently awarded medals of honor and the government boasted of the victory in the Cheonan's destruction to various cultural elites with North Korea. Even a propaganda poster depicting the similar destruction of a corvette style ship seems to support these claims. However, the South Korean government has been unable to, or unwilling to, confirm these reports as legitimate.
Still, motivation for an attack on Cheonan does currently exist in the volatile political environment of North Korea. Kim Jong-il is.. well.. ill, and the succession of power still on slightly shaky ground. Was the attack an unauthorized ploy for political power in the war-obsessed military elite of North Korea? Was it a mistake? Or are we looking at another Maine? Are we going to discover a hundred years down the line that it was a powder magazine all along?
In response to this apparent attack, the United States and the international community (or lap dogs) have agreed to further sanctions of the North Korean government. The United States and South Korea are even now staging a military exercise as a show of reprisal against the attacks, North Korea has threatened nuclear war in response.
Is it another bluff? If so, its one that must be called. But what if it is not? Or what if it started as a bluff, and due to Kim's failing health, the reigns of state are currently being held by the son of Helios? Will the nuclear sun burn the mountains and boil the seas because an inexperienced driver cannot control the horses that give it power?
Frankly, I don't think we've been this rhetorically close to a nuclear conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And as is readily apparent, the leadership of North Korea is certifiably insane. Is the threat of war a bluff? Or will the next few days change the world forever? Here's to hoping some small shred of sanity exists somewhere in the power structure of North Korea. The fate of millions may be in their grasp.
In regards to the charges of fabrication, I would not put such a move past the United States of America. After all, the war in Iraq was started with lies over WMDs, and the Vietnam War began with the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident. But in the current case, where is the motivation for American fabrication? In those two examples, both decisions were made by a president who feared they would not be re-elected without a successful war.
And Obama's reelection is.... up in the air....
Uh...
Shit!
Here's to crossing fingers we really did elect a smarter man to office. And may God watch over us all.
Provided the world does not end: In other news, U.S. Military personnel, and lots of them, buy child pornography on government computers. Awesome....
For most the summer, tensions between North Korea and South Korea have erupted over the sinking of a South Korean Warship on March 26th. Since then, investigators of several nations have confirmed South Korea's findings that a torpedo sunk the Cheonan, resulting in the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors. Naturally, all eyes turned to the North as the only possible aggressor. North Korea denies this, and they claim a conspiracy of fabrication.
However, South Korean websites devoted to the tracking of news from within North Korea claimed that a North Korean submarine crew was recently awarded medals of honor and the government boasted of the victory in the Cheonan's destruction to various cultural elites with North Korea. Even a propaganda poster depicting the similar destruction of a corvette style ship seems to support these claims. However, the South Korean government has been unable to, or unwilling to, confirm these reports as legitimate.
Still, motivation for an attack on Cheonan does currently exist in the volatile political environment of North Korea. Kim Jong-il is.. well.. ill, and the succession of power still on slightly shaky ground. Was the attack an unauthorized ploy for political power in the war-obsessed military elite of North Korea? Was it a mistake? Or are we looking at another Maine? Are we going to discover a hundred years down the line that it was a powder magazine all along?
In response to this apparent attack, the United States and the international community (or lap dogs) have agreed to further sanctions of the North Korean government. The United States and South Korea are even now staging a military exercise as a show of reprisal against the attacks, North Korea has threatened nuclear war in response.
Is it another bluff? If so, its one that must be called. But what if it is not? Or what if it started as a bluff, and due to Kim's failing health, the reigns of state are currently being held by the son of Helios? Will the nuclear sun burn the mountains and boil the seas because an inexperienced driver cannot control the horses that give it power?
Frankly, I don't think we've been this rhetorically close to a nuclear conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And as is readily apparent, the leadership of North Korea is certifiably insane. Is the threat of war a bluff? Or will the next few days change the world forever? Here's to hoping some small shred of sanity exists somewhere in the power structure of North Korea. The fate of millions may be in their grasp.
In regards to the charges of fabrication, I would not put such a move past the United States of America. After all, the war in Iraq was started with lies over WMDs, and the Vietnam War began with the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident. But in the current case, where is the motivation for American fabrication? In those two examples, both decisions were made by a president who feared they would not be re-elected without a successful war.
And Obama's reelection is.... up in the air....
Uh...
Shit!
Here's to crossing fingers we really did elect a smarter man to office. And may God watch over us all.
Provided the world does not end: In other news, U.S. Military personnel, and lots of them, buy child pornography on government computers. Awesome....
Saturday, July 24, 2010
England Health and American Insurance
As we all still remember, the insurance industry successfully lobbied for the near destruction of the health care plan. Now they are slowly pushing through committee the final nails in the coffin. Specifically, the laws which require at least 80% of your premium money to actually be spent on patient welfare.
Naturally, big insurance does not want to actually pay 80 cents for every dollar to the people their entire business is supposedly designed to help. That means only 20% of their income can be used to pay off share holders, deliver bonuses, build superfluous skyscrapers, lobby in politics, or advertise. For rich white men, this is unacceptable. Why settle for only a little profit when you could have millions more?
Since the G.O.P. was bought by insurance and stymied the health care plan, they at least don't have to worry about the government becoming a competitor, which is all they were worried about anyway. Of course the for-profit, scim-off-the-top middle men don't want the government in the game. The government is non-profit and could actually deliver on giving out lower prices. But then the media (which is heavily sponsored by insurance companies which run adds all over their channels for millions of dollars) stirred up an irrational phobic smear campaign against the idea, and the limp-dicked Democrats did what they usually do when stupid people yell sound-bytes loudly: back down.
So now things are returning to the status quo: big insurance will lose its obligation to actually serve the American people, and instead return to their zealous worship of Mammon.
Meanwhile, England might be taking a radical step forward in the direction of Obvious-ville. In order to save money from vanishing into the insurance companies which got themselves involved in their "national" health care plan by their politician buddies (exactly what happened to Obama-care earlier this year, btw), they are planning on killing the insurance industry right out. Why? Because they finally might be realizing what a scam the entire industry is.
They stepped back and asked: Why don't we just give money right to the doctors?
Duh.
Will this ever happen in America? Not while insurance companies donate millions to the G.O.P.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Washington D.C.
I just realized that our nation's capital is the perfect representation of our country:
A few rich people.
A lot of poor people.
And nobody's vote means a damn thing.
A few rich people.
A lot of poor people.
And nobody's vote means a damn thing.
Please Suppress the Crazies: "Boarder Patrol" and "Whale Wars"
Citizens of a rich country find themselves with a surplus of resources and of free time. Some of them need to find a new hobby.
None more so than the assholes with guns driving around the southern deserts looking for Mexicans.
First off, you have the right to own a gun, despite the rather clear wording of the amendment that you need to be in a maintained militia to have said right (e.g. The National Guard). But since the NRA pumps millions of dollars into conservative politics, and spouts out phobic rhetoric about the need for automatic weapons in a country that has not seen domestic combat since the Civil War and exists in a world without military rival... I guess we can read the amendment incorrectly, so the rich owners of the NRA and their weapon manufacturer butt buddies can make shit tons of money.
Business as usual in America.
But the Nazis that patrol the desert are not a militia. A militia is an official organization that is funded and controlled by the local government. These guys are just a rabble of wanna-be vigilantes.
The National Guard and the police should be out there stopping these people. If they don't have a legal means, then the local governments need to make a law so they do.
This "boarder patrol" claims to be made of patriots fighting to protect the country, but I would be rather perplexed as to how a few hundred poor Mexicans can threaten the United States. I am also perplexed to any economic argument these people might make, as they seem to have enough money to buy guns, body armor, military fatigues, and drive around in the desert all day. I doubt they have to worry about an uneducated migrant stealing their job.
They are racists, and worst of all, they are stupid racists with guns. Lasso them in before they shoot someone, or rape someone and then shoot them.
Besides, global climate change is making the desert the most effective gun ever. Good thing we put up that fence so the desperate poor we created have to risk the most dangerous parts of the terrain. Why is no one is willing to speak the fact that Latin America is a mess because America has been raping it consistently for over 150 years?
The other group of clowns come from the liberals: the whale wars group. These assholes are not quite as bad as the 5th column in the South, but they are a huge pain in the ass for foreign policy. These frothing-mouthed cetacean-lovers raise huge amounts of money that could be spent on helping people, but instead buy fancy speedboats and illegally harass whaling ships in international waters.
Then they bitch when the Japanese fucking take them out.
If we didn't still own the Japanese military, a destroyer would have sent all these people to the abyss years ago. Harassing another nation's business interest is not what you do. As an example: The United States of America overthrows governments and massacres countless people when that happens (e.g. Hawaii, Porto Rico, Mexico, Grenada, Columbia, Phillippines, Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, etc. etc.) That's how big of a deal it is.
The Coast Guard should suppress these people before one of two things happen: the Japanese figure out a way to disable all the whaling boats and leave the whole group of idiots stranded in the ocean, or the blowhole fetishers get frustrated and resort to real violence, creating an international incident, or worse, kill a human being over a fucking whale. These "activists" are our citizens, mostly, and they need to be reigned in.
Go to Japan. Translate your documentaries about how whales are cute and intelligent, and convince people to stop buying the stuff. That's how you win.
Why whales? Why dolphins? Why waste the resources on animals when 80% of humanity lives in abject poverty? Why does being cute and smart make them special? A cow feels pain. Pigs feel pain. You don't have to be intelligent to be tortured. Why don't you people care about any of the other animals that get ruthlessly slaughtered on a daily basis?
Get over it.
None more so than the assholes with guns driving around the southern deserts looking for Mexicans.
First off, you have the right to own a gun, despite the rather clear wording of the amendment that you need to be in a maintained militia to have said right (e.g. The National Guard). But since the NRA pumps millions of dollars into conservative politics, and spouts out phobic rhetoric about the need for automatic weapons in a country that has not seen domestic combat since the Civil War and exists in a world without military rival... I guess we can read the amendment incorrectly, so the rich owners of the NRA and their weapon manufacturer butt buddies can make shit tons of money.
Business as usual in America.
But the Nazis that patrol the desert are not a militia. A militia is an official organization that is funded and controlled by the local government. These guys are just a rabble of wanna-be vigilantes.
The National Guard and the police should be out there stopping these people. If they don't have a legal means, then the local governments need to make a law so they do.
This "boarder patrol" claims to be made of patriots fighting to protect the country, but I would be rather perplexed as to how a few hundred poor Mexicans can threaten the United States. I am also perplexed to any economic argument these people might make, as they seem to have enough money to buy guns, body armor, military fatigues, and drive around in the desert all day. I doubt they have to worry about an uneducated migrant stealing their job.
They are racists, and worst of all, they are stupid racists with guns. Lasso them in before they shoot someone, or rape someone and then shoot them.
Besides, global climate change is making the desert the most effective gun ever. Good thing we put up that fence so the desperate poor we created have to risk the most dangerous parts of the terrain. Why is no one is willing to speak the fact that Latin America is a mess because America has been raping it consistently for over 150 years?
The other group of clowns come from the liberals: the whale wars group. These assholes are not quite as bad as the 5th column in the South, but they are a huge pain in the ass for foreign policy. These frothing-mouthed cetacean-lovers raise huge amounts of money that could be spent on helping people, but instead buy fancy speedboats and illegally harass whaling ships in international waters.
Then they bitch when the Japanese fucking take them out.
If we didn't still own the Japanese military, a destroyer would have sent all these people to the abyss years ago. Harassing another nation's business interest is not what you do. As an example: The United States of America overthrows governments and massacres countless people when that happens (e.g. Hawaii, Porto Rico, Mexico, Grenada, Columbia, Phillippines, Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, etc. etc.) That's how big of a deal it is.
The Coast Guard should suppress these people before one of two things happen: the Japanese figure out a way to disable all the whaling boats and leave the whole group of idiots stranded in the ocean, or the blowhole fetishers get frustrated and resort to real violence, creating an international incident, or worse, kill a human being over a fucking whale. These "activists" are our citizens, mostly, and they need to be reigned in.
Go to Japan. Translate your documentaries about how whales are cute and intelligent, and convince people to stop buying the stuff. That's how you win.
Why whales? Why dolphins? Why waste the resources on animals when 80% of humanity lives in abject poverty? Why does being cute and smart make them special? A cow feels pain. Pigs feel pain. You don't have to be intelligent to be tortured. Why don't you people care about any of the other animals that get ruthlessly slaughtered on a daily basis?
Get over it.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The History of Jack Daniels: An example of how political corruption works in America
In the humble town of Lynchburg, Tennessee, the Jack Daniel Distillery faithfully churns out hangover juice for the entire world. The man himself got his start by buying a relative's tiny, one-man distillery at the age of 13. His first successes included loading up wagons of whiskey and heading off to sell it to Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, and probably to the Union soldiers as well when they moved through the state. After the war, Jack Daniels quickly grew into a huge business.
[The man.]
But the tale of how big business corrupts the American political system begins with Lem Motlow, Jack Daniel's bookkeeper who eventually inherited the business after the death of Jasper "Jack" Daniels himself.
[The second man.]
In 1910, Tennessee jumped the gun and signed into effect its own prohibition law ten years before the Constitutional Amendment. Lem Motlow moved the distillery to two other locations, but both never made a sale because they could not match the quality of whiskey produced by the Lynchburg location.
[The place.]
The Prohibition of 1920 stopped everything, but its repeal in 1933 did little to help the Lynchburg Distillery because Tennessee's state-wide prohibition was still in effect.
Here is where the magic starts:
Lem Motlow was able to get himself elected to the Tennessee State Senate sometime in the early 1930's. In 1938, he managed to pass through an amendment to the state prohibition law. Whereas it was illegal to create any form of alcohol in the state before, the law was changed to read it was illegal to make any alcohol in Tennessee BUT whiskey.
How did he do this exactly? Well, I can't know for sure unless I hit the archives in the state capitol, but Lem Motlow was an incredibly rich man. And money talks.
Conveniently, Lem Motlow owned the Jack Daniels corporation and the Distillery in Lynchburg. In short order it was running again and making Lem Motlow even more rich.
In recent times, Lynchburg's county, Moore County, became a dry county, meaning the sale of whiskey was prohibited. So while the Distillery could make the stuff, it could not sell booze on location.
Luckily, lots of free Jack Daniels whiskey appeared in the possession of certain people at the state capitol.
Equally lucky: a new special consideration was added to the state's dry county laws.
The Jack Daniels Distillery could now sell "commemorative bottles" at the Distillery. However, it just so happens that all of these bottles are, strangely enough, filled with whiskey.
[Hey! You got spirits in mah' collectibles!]
So.. there you have it: enough money in the right place, and the laws almost seem to rewrite themselves!
Though in this case... I can't say providing whiskey to the thirsty masses is that evil of a result, but its an identical process to all the corruption that does lead to evil result.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Grab Bag: Evil politicians, Americans, and Pope
I found so much news that irked my sense of Justice in small little ways, I thought it best to combine them all for a little variety.
To begin, the Vatican has "toughened" its child-abuse laws. Which translates to an increase in the Chruch's statue of limitations for child-abuse allegations from 10 to 20 years. Effectively, it is a utterly meaningless change. Since the Church is not recognized anywhere as a legal entity (Thank God), their statute of limitations doesn't mean shit. This weak-ass statement is a simply smoke-and-mirrors trick to make people think that something is being done, when it isn't. In the same exact statement, the Church reaffirmed various other religious "crimes" such as "heresy" and "schism", again making it against the Chruch's orders to not think or say anything they do not want you to say. Cool.
Fun Fact: If a priest ordains a woman as a priest, they will be instantly defrocked. If they touch a six-year-old's penis, they can keep putting the Body of Christ in Christian mouths for years to come. Which means, indirectly, every member of said Church has given head to a little boy. Awesome.
The Church needs to get over this idea that they are infallible. Everyone knows their organization has one of the worst histories in the world, directing multiple genocidal campaigns in the Middle East, and in the Americas, resulting in the cruel, pointless deaths of countless billions for the sake of shiney metal. The only people who think the Church is a source of uncorrupted goodness are the brainwashed masses who could all watch a priest rape their daughter and then thank God for the honor.
Giving evidence to the further spread of anti-Latino racism and xenophobia in The United States, a mysterious group has released a list of 'Immigrants' to local and federal authorities. If the women listed are pregnant, they even provide the expected due date of the child. I assume that would because these sick fucks want to kick the woman out of the country before her child has a chance to become a U.S. Citizen.
It's like spawn camping.
Obviously, the list is designed to provoke fear, and is an obvious form of passive terrorism. The letter claims "We are not violent, nor do we support violence," but they have no problem stealing private information and releasing if publicly in the effort to scare local Latinos. It goes on to spew the usual bullshit that racist Americans always use to hide their racism: "They take our jobs, our welfare, and create violence in the streets."
Don't these people realize that they are just scapegoating immigrants for the poor work economy? Did they just turn their brains off when it was revealed that it was big business that dragged the country into the shit hole for the dozenth time in our nation's history? Do they even care that the amount of money spent on welfare is but the smallest fraction of the amount that our nation has put into pointless Defense projects designed to make the ultra-rich even richer?
Of course not. Like all true Americans, they just hate anyone who is different. If we could go back in time, we should ship back the ancestors of every single mystery person who came together to form this list, and then watch them die in poverty, hardship, and/or third-world violence wherever they came from. Read history, people. We are all immigrants, and you list-makers are just the scum of this Earth who think they are somehow special.
The Democrats are being limp-dicked assholes once again. They shrunk the energy bill to only target utility corporations because the other industries, like big oil, are simply not making enough hundreds of millions of dollars. As usual, once the money starts flying around, all the good and noble ideas this country ever has is erased off the board in bought-and-paid-for committees. Or they get really awesome deals that no one else does.
The only fix to American politics is to make all forms of financial contributions illegal. We should take a few billions of the 360+ billion America spends on Defense every year, and mite it out equally to every political candidate in the country at a flat level, with increased amounts for national offices over state ones. The candidates get no more money than that, and any financing by anyone should be considered a corrupt bribe, which they all are.
Why do you think campaign financing is legal now? Because politicians are all rich men, and they make the laws.
"Of course I'll make it legal for you to give me thousands of dollars for free, big oil. Just so you know, it won't effect our relationship one bit!"
We all know it's bullshit. It's been utter bullshit since this country was founded. And yet we let it toil on and on and watch the honest laws designed to help our citizens become demonized by the politicians who are paid to do so by big money.
Big business always say "Oh noes, these taxes will stifle the economy!", then they get a tax break, then their share-holders get billions of dollars for their private fortunes. Weird.
Why not tax dividends and bonuses directly then? It won't interfere with business, only the people who want to siphon off a few extra millions for their over-seas luxuries. As it is now, we might as well just send our money to other countries for free.
America and South Korea seem interested in provoking a response from North Korea, who is blatantly guilty for sinking a South Korean warship for no reason. What's the point? We all know North Korean politics are focused entirely inward, and all aggressive foreign relations are simply guises for maintaining military law in the country. Have you ever read 1984? N. Korea is exactly like 1984, no joke. (and Animal Farm). The military posturing is just deigned to control the population, because Kim-Jong Ill only cares about holding local power.
Just back off, and ignore them. They deal in xenophobia and information lock, they will never become allies with anyone, as allied forces would corrupt their brainwashing of the population. Just hope the proles will finally rebel.
Finally, Cheney staves off death just a bit longer. Give it up man, the Devil will have his due. And for all the murders your financially-based wars have caused, you're going to be his favorite plaything for centuries to come.
To begin, the Vatican has "toughened" its child-abuse laws. Which translates to an increase in the Chruch's statue of limitations for child-abuse allegations from 10 to 20 years. Effectively, it is a utterly meaningless change. Since the Church is not recognized anywhere as a legal entity (Thank God), their statute of limitations doesn't mean shit. This weak-ass statement is a simply smoke-and-mirrors trick to make people think that something is being done, when it isn't. In the same exact statement, the Church reaffirmed various other religious "crimes" such as "heresy" and "schism", again making it against the Chruch's orders to not think or say anything they do not want you to say. Cool.
Fun Fact: If a priest ordains a woman as a priest, they will be instantly defrocked. If they touch a six-year-old's penis, they can keep putting the Body of Christ in Christian mouths for years to come. Which means, indirectly, every member of said Church has given head to a little boy. Awesome.
The Church needs to get over this idea that they are infallible. Everyone knows their organization has one of the worst histories in the world, directing multiple genocidal campaigns in the Middle East, and in the Americas, resulting in the cruel, pointless deaths of countless billions for the sake of shiney metal. The only people who think the Church is a source of uncorrupted goodness are the brainwashed masses who could all watch a priest rape their daughter and then thank God for the honor.
Giving evidence to the further spread of anti-Latino racism and xenophobia in The United States, a mysterious group has released a list of 'Immigrants' to local and federal authorities. If the women listed are pregnant, they even provide the expected due date of the child. I assume that would because these sick fucks want to kick the woman out of the country before her child has a chance to become a U.S. Citizen.
It's like spawn camping.
Obviously, the list is designed to provoke fear, and is an obvious form of passive terrorism. The letter claims "We are not violent, nor do we support violence," but they have no problem stealing private information and releasing if publicly in the effort to scare local Latinos. It goes on to spew the usual bullshit that racist Americans always use to hide their racism: "They take our jobs, our welfare, and create violence in the streets."
Don't these people realize that they are just scapegoating immigrants for the poor work economy? Did they just turn their brains off when it was revealed that it was big business that dragged the country into the shit hole for the dozenth time in our nation's history? Do they even care that the amount of money spent on welfare is but the smallest fraction of the amount that our nation has put into pointless Defense projects designed to make the ultra-rich even richer?
Of course not. Like all true Americans, they just hate anyone who is different. If we could go back in time, we should ship back the ancestors of every single mystery person who came together to form this list, and then watch them die in poverty, hardship, and/or third-world violence wherever they came from. Read history, people. We are all immigrants, and you list-makers are just the scum of this Earth who think they are somehow special.
The Democrats are being limp-dicked assholes once again. They shrunk the energy bill to only target utility corporations because the other industries, like big oil, are simply not making enough hundreds of millions of dollars. As usual, once the money starts flying around, all the good and noble ideas this country ever has is erased off the board in bought-and-paid-for committees. Or they get really awesome deals that no one else does.
The only fix to American politics is to make all forms of financial contributions illegal. We should take a few billions of the 360+ billion America spends on Defense every year, and mite it out equally to every political candidate in the country at a flat level, with increased amounts for national offices over state ones. The candidates get no more money than that, and any financing by anyone should be considered a corrupt bribe, which they all are.
Why do you think campaign financing is legal now? Because politicians are all rich men, and they make the laws.
"Of course I'll make it legal for you to give me thousands of dollars for free, big oil. Just so you know, it won't effect our relationship one bit!"
We all know it's bullshit. It's been utter bullshit since this country was founded. And yet we let it toil on and on and watch the honest laws designed to help our citizens become demonized by the politicians who are paid to do so by big money.
Big business always say "Oh noes, these taxes will stifle the economy!", then they get a tax break, then their share-holders get billions of dollars for their private fortunes. Weird.
Why not tax dividends and bonuses directly then? It won't interfere with business, only the people who want to siphon off a few extra millions for their over-seas luxuries. As it is now, we might as well just send our money to other countries for free.
America and South Korea seem interested in provoking a response from North Korea, who is blatantly guilty for sinking a South Korean warship for no reason. What's the point? We all know North Korean politics are focused entirely inward, and all aggressive foreign relations are simply guises for maintaining military law in the country. Have you ever read 1984? N. Korea is exactly like 1984, no joke. (and Animal Farm). The military posturing is just deigned to control the population, because Kim-Jong Ill only cares about holding local power.
Just back off, and ignore them. They deal in xenophobia and information lock, they will never become allies with anyone, as allied forces would corrupt their brainwashing of the population. Just hope the proles will finally rebel.
Finally, Cheney staves off death just a bit longer. Give it up man, the Devil will have his due. And for all the murders your financially-based wars have caused, you're going to be his favorite plaything for centuries to come.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Religious Persecution is wrong, unless it's against Muslims.
In the standard pattern of the human race, the sensational actions of the minority generates broad ignorance and intolerance of the whole. No more so than in the spread of anti-Muslim legislation throughout the Western world.
France, Spain, Italy, and Belgium have all made legal steps to ban the use of the Muslim burqa, the facial veil worn by women. It is a prominent element of both Arabic and Islamic culture, and it offers many excuses to what adds up to simple intolerance and ignorance.
Some say it is a violation of Women's rights, but seem to forget the fact that making them illegal makes it impossible for women who DO want to wear the burqa to wear them. So in reality, they are just trading one kind of persecution for another. Thus, it is a simple rhetorical veil (get it?) that hides the prejudice and ignorance behind the motivation.
Others claim it is a potential security danger, that the veils, especially the full-body variety, could be used to hide weapons or explosives. An equally flawed argument, because a coat, duster, or trench coat, can hide dangerous materials with equal ease. The persecution comes from a simple "forgetting" of this fact. Also, the idea that Muslim women cannot be searched is equally idiotic; all you need is a private room and a female security officer, two things any security checkpoint can easily provide.
The Swiss have taken it one step further by disallowing the building of minarets on Islamic mosques.
Traditionally, five of these come out of a Mosque, each representing the Five Pillars of Islam: Faith, Prayer, Alms, Fasting, and Pilgrimage.
The Swiss claim the minarets somehow encourage Muslim extremism. This claim shows extraordinary ignorance as none of the pillars represent anything relating to violence.
And the political advertisements throughout Switzerland speak for themselves:
France, Spain, Italy, and Belgium have all made legal steps to ban the use of the Muslim burqa, the facial veil worn by women. It is a prominent element of both Arabic and Islamic culture, and it offers many excuses to what adds up to simple intolerance and ignorance.
Some say it is a violation of Women's rights, but seem to forget the fact that making them illegal makes it impossible for women who DO want to wear the burqa to wear them. So in reality, they are just trading one kind of persecution for another. Thus, it is a simple rhetorical veil (get it?) that hides the prejudice and ignorance behind the motivation.
Others claim it is a potential security danger, that the veils, especially the full-body variety, could be used to hide weapons or explosives. An equally flawed argument, because a coat, duster, or trench coat, can hide dangerous materials with equal ease. The persecution comes from a simple "forgetting" of this fact. Also, the idea that Muslim women cannot be searched is equally idiotic; all you need is a private room and a female security officer, two things any security checkpoint can easily provide.
The Swiss have taken it one step further by disallowing the building of minarets on Islamic mosques.
The Swiss claim the minarets somehow encourage Muslim extremism. This claim shows extraordinary ignorance as none of the pillars represent anything relating to violence.
And the political advertisements throughout Switzerland speak for themselves:
So minarets are akin to nuclear warheads? Huh.
Oh, Muslims are black sheep? Huh.
What is somewhat amusing is that many Islamic extremists cite religious persecution as the cause for their violent reprisals, so adding pointless laws such as these sounds like a great way to become the target of more attacks. The Swiss do not want safety, the just want to persecute the source of their irrational fears.
Finally, what would any discussion of persecution be without an example from the United States of America?
Apparently, people do not want mosques built near them.
The quotation of one typical American idiot goes as follows:
"Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood. "
Ah, yes. Good ole' American logic.
Based on that statement:
Wouldn't you agree that every pedophile priest, past and present, has come out of a seminary?
Wouldn't you agree that every corrupt cop, past and present, has come out of Police Academy?
Wouldn't you agree that every American serial killer, past and present, has come out of an American Elementary school?
Wouldn't you agree that every American soldier guilty of war crimes, past and present, has come out of boot camp?
EDIT: A new argument against a Muslim community center in downtown NY: "It's a landmark site as a result of the attacks!"
Except the building where the Mosque is going was a defunct department store. Yes. Nothing says America like failed capitalism.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Arizona Again
Well, Obama finally did it. He has taken his balls out of his pants, and slapped Arizona with a bit of hairy scrote.
Yessir, the Fed is taking on the State by saying that the Arizona immigration law is an attempt to go over the head of a Federal law.
Apparently, it is hard to prove discrimination will happen in the future, even in a country where white cops punch black jaywalkers who happen to be teen girls, or execute young black men in front of twenty people and get away with unintentional manslaughter.
Yeah, I totally believe Gov. Jan Brewer when she says American law enforcement does not discriminate. Especially after hearing this story from a friend of mine:
"So one time I got stopped while I was driving with my buddy, Jose`. We just picked up- so I had a .25 in my pocket. The cop came up to my window and said, 'I notice the distinct smell of marijuana in this car.' We hadn't been smoking, but I thought perhaps the bag in my pocket was leaking. So we get out, and the cop checks our plates, then comes back with his partner. They search Jose`, find nothing, and then tell us to go. And I thought: WOW, good thing I was white."
Moral of the Story: If you're carrying drugs, make sure you bring a Latino friend with you, because they will get searched instead.
Anyway, back to it.
Many Democratic governors are beginning to do what Dems usually do when a battle they should fight is placed plainly in front of them: they watch their dicks shrivel up and then jack-off their Republican cohorts in apology. Apparently, challenging the Immigration Law might jeopardize Democratic gubernatorial candidates.
To them I say: Fuck you.
You're Democrats. You're supposed to be the dudes I hold up, despite the disgusting truth of your corrupt lives, because you're a lesser evil to the Republicans. So fucking grow a pair, take the G.O.P meatstick out of your mouth, and say the fucking truth: the law is blatantly racist.
It's not hard. You can say fuck if you want, I do it all the time. Though a fair point would be that I am a nobody and no one gives a shit. But hell, Biden called some guy a smart-ass a few weeks ago, and to the conservatives' dismay, when the dude showed up on Fucks and Friends (err, Fox and Friends, sorry), he was actually cool about it. Ah, they so wanted the magic of Joe the Plummer again (who ironically would have paid more taxes under McCain's plan).
I mean, let's take a look at some comments from Arizona politicans:
“It’s nice to see the Obama administration finally concede there is no allowance for racial profiling in Arizona’s immigration law,” said Kirk Adams, the Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. “After all the sound and fury about discrimination, it’s now clear that the administration’s entire case against SB 1070 rests on a technical claim that the law is indirectly pre-empted by federal immigration law.”
United States Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said Mr. Obama’s discrimination worries are “glaringly absent from his lawsuit.”
Clearly, Republicans do not read history books- err.. scratch that.. no one reads history books apparently. And conservatives rewrite them anyway.
Let's start over:
Clearly, Republicans do not watch Kevin Kostner movies. If they did, they probably would have seen The Untouchables. They would probably remember that they got Al Capone on tax evasion, not on murdering tons of people and generally being a total asshole. Why? Because there was no hard evidence of him killing people.
So now, with no evidence yet of discrimination because the law is not yet in effect, the Federal Government is going for the thing they CAN prove: State precedence over Federal law.
And since I have faith that our nation has finally learned a lesson from three hundred years of racism, I think this law is going bye-bye.
Yessir, the Fed is taking on the State by saying that the Arizona immigration law is an attempt to go over the head of a Federal law.
Apparently, it is hard to prove discrimination will happen in the future, even in a country where white cops punch black jaywalkers who happen to be teen girls, or execute young black men in front of twenty people and get away with unintentional manslaughter.
Yeah, I totally believe Gov. Jan Brewer when she says American law enforcement does not discriminate. Especially after hearing this story from a friend of mine:
"So one time I got stopped while I was driving with my buddy, Jose`. We just picked up- so I had a .25 in my pocket. The cop came up to my window and said, 'I notice the distinct smell of marijuana in this car.' We hadn't been smoking, but I thought perhaps the bag in my pocket was leaking. So we get out, and the cop checks our plates, then comes back with his partner. They search Jose`, find nothing, and then tell us to go. And I thought: WOW, good thing I was white."
Moral of the Story: If you're carrying drugs, make sure you bring a Latino friend with you, because they will get searched instead.
Anyway, back to it.
Many Democratic governors are beginning to do what Dems usually do when a battle they should fight is placed plainly in front of them: they watch their dicks shrivel up and then jack-off their Republican cohorts in apology. Apparently, challenging the Immigration Law might jeopardize Democratic gubernatorial candidates.
To them I say: Fuck you.
You're Democrats. You're supposed to be the dudes I hold up, despite the disgusting truth of your corrupt lives, because you're a lesser evil to the Republicans. So fucking grow a pair, take the G.O.P meatstick out of your mouth, and say the fucking truth: the law is blatantly racist.
It's not hard. You can say fuck if you want, I do it all the time. Though a fair point would be that I am a nobody and no one gives a shit. But hell, Biden called some guy a smart-ass a few weeks ago, and to the conservatives' dismay, when the dude showed up on Fucks and Friends (err, Fox and Friends, sorry), he was actually cool about it. Ah, they so wanted the magic of Joe the Plummer again (who ironically would have paid more taxes under McCain's plan).
I mean, let's take a look at some comments from Arizona politicans:
“It’s nice to see the Obama administration finally concede there is no allowance for racial profiling in Arizona’s immigration law,” said Kirk Adams, the Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. “After all the sound and fury about discrimination, it’s now clear that the administration’s entire case against SB 1070 rests on a technical claim that the law is indirectly pre-empted by federal immigration law.”
United States Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said Mr. Obama’s discrimination worries are “glaringly absent from his lawsuit.”
Clearly, Republicans do not read history books- err.. scratch that.. no one reads history books apparently. And conservatives rewrite them anyway.
Let's start over:
Clearly, Republicans do not watch Kevin Kostner movies. If they did, they probably would have seen The Untouchables. They would probably remember that they got Al Capone on tax evasion, not on murdering tons of people and generally being a total asshole. Why? Because there was no hard evidence of him killing people.
So now, with no evidence yet of discrimination because the law is not yet in effect, the Federal Government is going for the thing they CAN prove: State precedence over Federal law.
And since I have faith that our nation has finally learned a lesson from three hundred years of racism, I think this law is going bye-bye.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Defense of Marriage Act under fire
Finally.
Another person in power with the guts (and according to conservatives, the appropriate esteem for the Adversary) to confirm that homosexuals are human beings.
My question: Why did this take so long after Theodore Olson's triumph of logic: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?
Naturally, the standard conservitive argument was there to criticize the valor of Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston :
"Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group, said he was disappointed by the decision.
“The idea that a court can say that this definition of marriage that’s been around forever is irrational is mind-boggling,” Mr. Gacek said. “It’s a bad decision.”"
Once again for all the world to see, we have the usual conservative argument: It's always been this way! Why change it?
Yes. Because when oppressing people different from you, the idea of tradition is more important than pesky questions of human rights and American equality.
Its amusing to think that if our nation embraced all of its traditions, Chris Gacek would have worked in a coal mine by the time he was six years old, and would have died before the age of 15. Yes. Those were the good ole' days. Unless of course, his parents were rich.
People thought the world was flat for quite a long time, too. Oh! Oh! I can see Mr. Gacek in the trails against Galileo:
"The idea that this man can say that this definition of a earth-centered universe is irrational is mind-boggling," Ser Gacek said. "It's a bad decision."
Anyway, we all know the "definition" he is talking about is the one given in the Bible. I like how the ignorant religious try to hide the fact they are talking about God now. Why bother?
For a secular argument: Not everyone is a Christian, Mr. Gacek, and non-Abrahamic religions get married, too. So your fucking definition of marriage doesn't mean shit. But hey, if people could see their own ethnocentrism, we wouldn't be in America, or on Earth. As a side note, ethnocentrism is a neutral term, so I am consistently guilty of it myself; though mine doesn't seek to harm my fellow humanity. Why are the cruel so often the biggest advocates of God?
This leads into a religious argument: God is the supreme good. Lord of Mercy. The idea that He would bless the persecution of human beings whom are doing nothing else but living happily together is pure folly. Do you honestly think that when your eyes reopen upon the Last Day, God is going to walk over and fist bump you for blocking financial benefits for homosexual unions?
You might want to reread your precious books.
Or better yet, read the most recent divine publication: the Quran. You Christians realize its from the same God you supposedly worship, don't you? It's worth a read, especially since most of you are actually polytheists in His eye.
And before you go into "But the Quran isn't real!", I encourage you to remember that is what everyone says about YOUR books. Since God states in the Quran, quite plainly, that all three Scriptures are Truth and viable, you don't have anything to lose.
To summarize God's message: If you are being wronged, you can bring Justice to the Evil. If you are not being wronged, then its between those people and God, and mind your own fucking business.
Homosexuals are not a threat to anybody. Maybe you should stop using God as a validation for your homophobia. You might come to regret it.
P.S.: The logical fix for the Defense of Marriage Act is to make it apply to all marriages, not just heterosexual ones.
Another person in power with the guts (and according to conservatives, the appropriate esteem for the Adversary) to confirm that homosexuals are human beings.
My question: Why did this take so long after Theodore Olson's triumph of logic: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage?
Naturally, the standard conservitive argument was there to criticize the valor of Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston :
"Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group, said he was disappointed by the decision.
“The idea that a court can say that this definition of marriage that’s been around forever is irrational is mind-boggling,” Mr. Gacek said. “It’s a bad decision.”"
Once again for all the world to see, we have the usual conservative argument: It's always been this way! Why change it?
Yes. Because when oppressing people different from you, the idea of tradition is more important than pesky questions of human rights and American equality.
Its amusing to think that if our nation embraced all of its traditions, Chris Gacek would have worked in a coal mine by the time he was six years old, and would have died before the age of 15. Yes. Those were the good ole' days. Unless of course, his parents were rich.
People thought the world was flat for quite a long time, too. Oh! Oh! I can see Mr. Gacek in the trails against Galileo:
"The idea that this man can say that this definition of a earth-centered universe is irrational is mind-boggling," Ser Gacek said. "It's a bad decision."
Anyway, we all know the "definition" he is talking about is the one given in the Bible. I like how the ignorant religious try to hide the fact they are talking about God now. Why bother?
For a secular argument: Not everyone is a Christian, Mr. Gacek, and non-Abrahamic religions get married, too. So your fucking definition of marriage doesn't mean shit. But hey, if people could see their own ethnocentrism, we wouldn't be in America, or on Earth. As a side note, ethnocentrism is a neutral term, so I am consistently guilty of it myself; though mine doesn't seek to harm my fellow humanity. Why are the cruel so often the biggest advocates of God?
This leads into a religious argument: God is the supreme good. Lord of Mercy. The idea that He would bless the persecution of human beings whom are doing nothing else but living happily together is pure folly. Do you honestly think that when your eyes reopen upon the Last Day, God is going to walk over and fist bump you for blocking financial benefits for homosexual unions?
You might want to reread your precious books.
Or better yet, read the most recent divine publication: the Quran. You Christians realize its from the same God you supposedly worship, don't you? It's worth a read, especially since most of you are actually polytheists in His eye.
And before you go into "But the Quran isn't real!", I encourage you to remember that is what everyone says about YOUR books. Since God states in the Quran, quite plainly, that all three Scriptures are Truth and viable, you don't have anything to lose.
To summarize God's message: If you are being wronged, you can bring Justice to the Evil. If you are not being wronged, then its between those people and God, and mind your own fucking business.
Homosexuals are not a threat to anybody. Maybe you should stop using God as a validation for your homophobia. You might come to regret it.
P.S.: The logical fix for the Defense of Marriage Act is to make it apply to all marriages, not just heterosexual ones.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Declaration of Independence: [Revised and Edited for Accuracy]
Notice of New Management
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 .
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one [group of rich, white men] to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the [assumptions of white Christianity] entitle them, a decent respect to [their realm of power] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [white] men [in the top 5% of society] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [and the privilege to deny said rights to anyone they so choose].
--That to secure these rights, Governments are [wrested from other] Men, deriving their just powers from the [subjugation and oppression] of the governed,
--That whenever any [foreign] Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the [Duty] of the [poor] People to alter or to abolish it, and [the rich] to institute new [domestic] Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them (the rich) shall seem most likely to [preserve] their [Wealth].
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that [the not-rich] are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [rich men] under [taxes to the cost of even a small portion of their wealth], it is [the rich’s] right, it is their duty, to [convince the poor to] throw off such Government, and to provide new [brain-washed cannon-fodder] for their future security.
--Such has been the patient sufferance of these [fifty-six rich, white men]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, [which We wish now to commit ourselves on our own people], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world [that we will continue and improve on the King’s good work.]
[We shall] refuse [our] Assent to [our own] Laws, [especially] the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
[We shall] refuse to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people.
[We shall let legislative bodies read the phone book endlessly, thus blocking the entire political process.]
[Our new Representative House will themselves put forward invasions on the rights of the people.]
[We will allow foreigners to arrive, work for a few years, and then kill them by mistreatment, violence, or disease.]
[We shall create a whore of Justice, to serve the desires of the rich.]
[We will let rich, white men pay all of our Judiciary officials.]
[We shall] establish New Offices of our own, and send [hither] swarms of our Officers to murder [other peoples], and eat out [their natural resources.]
[We will, in times of peace, stand armies in other countries, and force consent from said country’s legislatures.]
[We shall put the Military under the thumb of the Executive, who will be under the thumb of the rich.]
[We shall] combine with [big business] to subject [our people] to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving [our] Assent to [our] Acts of [bribed] Legislation:
[We shall] Quarter large bodies of armed troops among [buildings our friends received the contracts to build.]
[We shall allow our citizens to only get away with murdering browns and blacks.]
[We shall heavily tax] our Trade with all parts of the world.
[We shall not allow anyone but the rich to vote, and then impose taxes on everyone else.]
[We shall] deprive [people] in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
[We shall] transport [people to
[We shall] abolish the free System of [democratic elections] in neighboring [Latin America], establishing therein Arbitrary government[s], and enlarging [their] Boundaries so as to render [them] at once an example and fit instrument for introducing [new wealth] into these [rich men’s wallets]:
[We shall] plunder our seas, ravage our Coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the lives of our people.
[We are] at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
[We have] excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and [have] endeavored to bring [to] the inhabitants of our frontiers, the [Native Americans we constantly cheat], [Our] known rule of warfare: an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions [our people] have Petitioned [from us a] Redress in the most humble terms: [Their] repeated Petitions [shall be] answered only by repeated injury. A [Politician] whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is [fit] to be the ruler of [these
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our [poorer] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their [rabble-rousers] to extend an unwarrantable [equality between] us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the [lies] of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our [profit margin]. They too have been deaf to [our] voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, [fodder] in War, in Peace [slaves].
We, therefore, the Representatives of the [top 5% of the] United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of [ourselves], solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to [invent] War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which [Tyrants] may of right do [to their people]. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)