I am a cigar smoker. Anyone who knows me knows this about me. I am what you call a “pleasure smoker”, meaning that I smoke about one cigar per day, and if I go a few days without a cigar I miss it, but am still basically fine. In other words, I am NOT addicted to smoking.
At the same time, I hate cigarettes and all that they represent. Just as wine connoisseurs hate the mass alcohol industry that caters to alcoholics. When you love something, you hate to see that thing abused. Cigarette addiction took my grandfather with emphysema and is currently taking my parents in the same dreadful fashion. And trust me, addicts, this is a terrible way to die.
I tell you that to tell you this… there has been a lot of balderdash about the so-called “SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) tax”. What this does is to raise taxes on tobacco products in order to help provide medical insurance for uninsured kids. At the height (or hype) of the hysteria, I heard that my cigars were going to increase by TEN DOLLARS PER CIGAR and that cigarettes were going to DOUBLE OR TRIPLE IN PRICE! Oh, my God, TWELVE DOLLARS FOR A PACK OF CIGARETTES AND FIFTEEN TO TWENTY DOLLARS FOR A DECENT CIGAR?
Of course, as with most hype, it turned out to be pure bunk. The fact is that when SCHIP goes into effect on April first, a pack of cigarettes will increase by around sixty cents per pack and my cigars will increase about forty cents per cigar. Is that really that bad? I mean, realizing that this tax is on something that ranges from being a luxury to being an addiction, but is in no way shape or form a necessity.
Cigarette smokers will be hit the hardest, with cartons of cigarettes increasing by about $12 per carton. That’s tough. The alternative, of course, is to stop smoking if you think that your finances can’t handle it.
And to anyone who thinks that the SCHIP tax represents President Obama breaking his promise not to raise taxes on poor people… well… you’re an idiot. Yes, more poor people smoke cigarettes than middle class or wealthy people. First off, if you want to phrase this in such Bushlike simple mindedness, think of it this way… more middle class people and wealthy people smoke cigars than poor people. Also, does it occur to you that maybe there’s a connection between an inability to quit a habit that does nothing for you but slowly kill you with the kind of self-discipline that it takes to increase your wealth? Also, anti-Obama idiots, BARACK OBAMA IS A CIGARETTE SMOKER! He’s trying to quit, but he is a cigarette smoker.
Just some food for thought. Or to smoke. Or whatever.
Peace.
Randal
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Blessings
For years, I have had the feeling that God is guiding me toward writing something to serve God’s purpose. For years, I have been shaping this work, trying to work it from my soul and my mind onto paper.
One of the sections that I have come up with that I believe is vital to this work is a section on finding the blessings in challenges. Trying to look at some tough challenges that we have faced as a nation and trying to find the blessings wrapped up inside these challenges. I truly believe the old adage that God does not close a door without opening a window.
My doctor told me this afternoon that I have diabetes. As I talked this over with a loved one tonight, I realized that, in order to be true to my belief, I have to figure out the blessing wrapped up in this challenge.
Right at this moment, I am having a difficult time doing this. All that I can think is “I don’t want to have diabetes.”
So stay tuned. As I process this, and get past the initial shock, I am challenging myself to discover the blessing hidden inside this challenge.
Peace.
Randal
One of the sections that I have come up with that I believe is vital to this work is a section on finding the blessings in challenges. Trying to look at some tough challenges that we have faced as a nation and trying to find the blessings wrapped up inside these challenges. I truly believe the old adage that God does not close a door without opening a window.
My doctor told me this afternoon that I have diabetes. As I talked this over with a loved one tonight, I realized that, in order to be true to my belief, I have to figure out the blessing wrapped up in this challenge.
Right at this moment, I am having a difficult time doing this. All that I can think is “I don’t want to have diabetes.”
So stay tuned. As I process this, and get past the initial shock, I am challenging myself to discover the blessing hidden inside this challenge.
Peace.
Randal
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Difference
I heard it again, the other day. Twice, in fact. “There is no difference between democrats and republicans.” One of the people who said this was a college graduate with a degree in poli-sci. First off, poli-sci is typically considered a prerequisite for a LEGAL career, not a POLITICAL one. Second off, studying politics from a book no more makes you an expert on real-world political practice than studying surgery from a book qualifies you to crack open someone’s brain.
I would beg to differ, and let me give you an example.
For six years, the republicans ruled all three branches of government. We had a conservative (in name, if not action) president, a conservative (in name, if not action) legislature and a conservative judiciary. When this group did something wrong, there was almost always public outcry. And their response? Basically “Shut up – we’re doing this for your own good.” No acknowledgement that they had screwed up, and no attempt to correct it.
Now the democrats are in charge of two of the branches – the presidency and the legislature. Recently… well… they screwed up. They passed a bail-out bill that included AIG without making sure that the money couldn’t be given to the executives who screwed the system up. As a matter of fact, when this idea was proposed, the democrats shot it down. So guess what happened? There were a hundred and sixty five million dollars given out in bonuses to… you guessed it… the people who screwed the system up. And there was a public outcry. Here’s where the democrats are different, though – they at least made an attempt to correct it. They passed an emergency bill imposing a tax of 90% of those bonuses from people whose income is $250,000 or greater. I’m kind of thinking that includes most or all of the people who received bonuses.
I keep saying that it was the democrats who did this. Where were the republicans during all of this? Frankly I’m not sure where they were during the initial bail-out. But in the emergency 90% tax bill, they were split down the middle, with a slight majority voting AGAINST it. So in other words, in all probability, if the republicans had still been in charge, this idiocy would probably have gone uncorrected.
I am not saying that the democrats are not corrupt. They are. It’s pretty clear. What I am saying is that they are LESS corrupt than the republicans, and that there may still be hope for them as a party.
Just for a lark, I Googled the terms “republican indicted” and “democrat indicted”. The first page of the republican list included Ted Stephens (taking bribes), Scott Muschany (sexual assault of a 14 year old girl), “Lt. Gov. Krolicki” (the website is down, so I can’t get his first name – misappropriation), Mark Deli Siljander (terrorist money laundering), Rick Renzi (extortion, wire fraud) and Ernie Fletcher (conspiracy). From the “democrat” front page comes William Jefferson (bribery). Oh, and the SON of Tennessee lawmaker Mike Kernell for hacking Sarah Palin’s e-mail account. So that’s six to one. Or one and a half , if you count the kid.
And this doesn’t include probably the biggest indictment of all. Tom “The Hammer” DeLay. This is the guy who went to a U S Possession (the name escapes me at the moment) where it is the norm to lure girls there from Asian countries with the promise of going to America, forcing them into prostitution, stripping or sweat shops, forcing them to get abortions when they become pregnant, and referred to it as a model for American-style capitalism. This is the guy who organized the gang of republican legislative assistants, all from out of state, to go to Florida to protest the presidential ballot recount in 2000. You remember the angry mob of suit-wearing young men? Yeah. Not Floridians – legislative assistants from Texas and Alaska (one of the assistant of the aforementioned Ted Stephens) and God only knows where else.
So how did the republicans get so much more corrupt than the democrats? They hooked their wagon almost entirely to the falling star of big business. As far up the asses of big business as Bill Clinton was, he was an amateur compared to the republicans.
The democrats, instead of courting big business, have courted minorities, women, homosexuals, hippies, artists and intellectuals. So they have been able to stay FREER, if not entirely FREE of corruption.
There’s still hope for the democrats, as proven by this 90% tax to get OUR money back that half the republicans voted against. So if you’re a republican reading this, bear this in mind: the democrats may have stupidly given your money away, but it’s also the democrats trying to get it back. More than half of the republicans tried to prevent that.
Peace.
Randal
I would beg to differ, and let me give you an example.
For six years, the republicans ruled all three branches of government. We had a conservative (in name, if not action) president, a conservative (in name, if not action) legislature and a conservative judiciary. When this group did something wrong, there was almost always public outcry. And their response? Basically “Shut up – we’re doing this for your own good.” No acknowledgement that they had screwed up, and no attempt to correct it.
Now the democrats are in charge of two of the branches – the presidency and the legislature. Recently… well… they screwed up. They passed a bail-out bill that included AIG without making sure that the money couldn’t be given to the executives who screwed the system up. As a matter of fact, when this idea was proposed, the democrats shot it down. So guess what happened? There were a hundred and sixty five million dollars given out in bonuses to… you guessed it… the people who screwed the system up. And there was a public outcry. Here’s where the democrats are different, though – they at least made an attempt to correct it. They passed an emergency bill imposing a tax of 90% of those bonuses from people whose income is $250,000 or greater. I’m kind of thinking that includes most or all of the people who received bonuses.
I keep saying that it was the democrats who did this. Where were the republicans during all of this? Frankly I’m not sure where they were during the initial bail-out. But in the emergency 90% tax bill, they were split down the middle, with a slight majority voting AGAINST it. So in other words, in all probability, if the republicans had still been in charge, this idiocy would probably have gone uncorrected.
I am not saying that the democrats are not corrupt. They are. It’s pretty clear. What I am saying is that they are LESS corrupt than the republicans, and that there may still be hope for them as a party.
Just for a lark, I Googled the terms “republican indicted” and “democrat indicted”. The first page of the republican list included Ted Stephens (taking bribes), Scott Muschany (sexual assault of a 14 year old girl), “Lt. Gov. Krolicki” (the website is down, so I can’t get his first name – misappropriation), Mark Deli Siljander (terrorist money laundering), Rick Renzi (extortion, wire fraud) and Ernie Fletcher (conspiracy). From the “democrat” front page comes William Jefferson (bribery). Oh, and the SON of Tennessee lawmaker Mike Kernell for hacking Sarah Palin’s e-mail account. So that’s six to one. Or one and a half , if you count the kid.
And this doesn’t include probably the biggest indictment of all. Tom “The Hammer” DeLay. This is the guy who went to a U S Possession (the name escapes me at the moment) where it is the norm to lure girls there from Asian countries with the promise of going to America, forcing them into prostitution, stripping or sweat shops, forcing them to get abortions when they become pregnant, and referred to it as a model for American-style capitalism. This is the guy who organized the gang of republican legislative assistants, all from out of state, to go to Florida to protest the presidential ballot recount in 2000. You remember the angry mob of suit-wearing young men? Yeah. Not Floridians – legislative assistants from Texas and Alaska (one of the assistant of the aforementioned Ted Stephens) and God only knows where else.
So how did the republicans get so much more corrupt than the democrats? They hooked their wagon almost entirely to the falling star of big business. As far up the asses of big business as Bill Clinton was, he was an amateur compared to the republicans.
The democrats, instead of courting big business, have courted minorities, women, homosexuals, hippies, artists and intellectuals. So they have been able to stay FREER, if not entirely FREE of corruption.
There’s still hope for the democrats, as proven by this 90% tax to get OUR money back that half the republicans voted against. So if you’re a republican reading this, bear this in mind: the democrats may have stupidly given your money away, but it’s also the democrats trying to get it back. More than half of the republicans tried to prevent that.
Peace.
Randal
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Buyer's Remorse
A devout conservative co-worker asked me this morning if I had “buyer’s remorse” about voting for President Obama yet. Let me answer that by saying that every time that I type the words PRESIDENT OBAMA, my heart SINGS!
But please allow me to be a little more concise here.
The first thing that I should say is that, in his first two months in office, there are things that I wish that he would do differently. I wish, for instance, that he would tool up on corporations a little more than he is. This AIG fiasco is a case in point, giving some hundred and a half million of OUR MONEY to the executives who caused their business to fail in the first place as “bonuses”. And the rich get richer… and we’re going to pretend to be offended by this NOW? After THIRTY YEARS OF THIS STUFF? By the same token, I recognize the political reality. I recognize that the republican party has spent the last thirty years convincing the republicans of my generation that if we do anything… absolutely ANYTHING… to reign in the excesses of big business, America will fall apart at the seams, the sun will come crashing into the ocean, dogs will marry cats, and every Bible in the world will suddenly burst into turds. It also tickles me when I tell someone about Comcast’s latest dirty trick (requiring everyone to get a “free” standard-definition cable box in order to deprive basic cable viewers of receiving their local channels in HD for free), someone that I KNOW to be a pro-business republican, and they respond with “THAT’S NOT FAIR! WHY DOESN’T SOMEONE TELL THEM THEY CAN’T?!” Because you are so careful to elect republicans who WON’T, that’s why. You gotta love this. Screw up our elections, erase our bill of rights line by line, imprison Americans for speaking out against the occupier of the Oval Office, oh well… but screw with their TV…
By the way, to all cable customers out there who are having this dirty trick pulled on them… the answer is to hook an indoor digital antenna to your HDTV. Then you can receive whatever digital broadcasts are being sent out in your area… including the locals in HD… and still receive the same standard-definition cable through your box that you’ve always received.
Bottom line of this train of thought is that I don’t ever expect to slavishly agree with EVERYTHING that a sitting president does. If I did… well, I’d be a republican, wouldn’t I?
The next thing that I’d like to say… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I AM NOT A PARTISAN. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I did not vote for Barack Obama out of blind party loyalty, I voted for him because I thought then (and think now) that he’s the best thing for America. The best thing that we’ve seen in a LONG TIME. Hate to sound melodramatic, but he may well be the last hope to restore America to our pre-Reagan glory.
I think that the reason that my republican loved ones, friends and acquaintances have a hard time with this is because they cannot imagine voting for anyone who is not a republican. I have jokingly said that 30% of America will march robotically to the polls every election day and pull the lever for whatever republican candidate is on the ticket – if it’s GWB, or John McCain, or Sarah Palin or Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Harpo Hitler. (His middle name WAS Harpo, wasn’t it?)
I heard perhaps the greatest evaluation of this partisan mess that we’ve gotten our country in today from General Richard B. Meyers interviewed on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show”. He said that the republicans and the democrats have turned into the bloods and the crips – just with better tailors.
This is how non-partisan I am… in 2000, if the republicans had done the SANE thing and nominated John McCain… this was the pre-kissing-Bush’s-ass-back-when-he-was-a-genuine-maverick McCain… I would have voted for McCain in a HEARTBEAT. And I think that if we had elected President McCain instead of allowing usurper Bush to steal the election, that we wouldn’t be in HALF the mess that we’re in today.
So do I have buyer’s remorse? No. Do I think that we’re better off than if the new and vastly unimproved McCain had been elected? Yes. Do I agree with everything that the President has done? No, nor do I expect to. I have a brain, you see, and a working Bullshit Detector.
Think, brothers and sisters.
Be critical.
Don’t swallow the bullshit without a fight.
Peace.
Randal
But please allow me to be a little more concise here.
The first thing that I should say is that, in his first two months in office, there are things that I wish that he would do differently. I wish, for instance, that he would tool up on corporations a little more than he is. This AIG fiasco is a case in point, giving some hundred and a half million of OUR MONEY to the executives who caused their business to fail in the first place as “bonuses”. And the rich get richer… and we’re going to pretend to be offended by this NOW? After THIRTY YEARS OF THIS STUFF? By the same token, I recognize the political reality. I recognize that the republican party has spent the last thirty years convincing the republicans of my generation that if we do anything… absolutely ANYTHING… to reign in the excesses of big business, America will fall apart at the seams, the sun will come crashing into the ocean, dogs will marry cats, and every Bible in the world will suddenly burst into turds. It also tickles me when I tell someone about Comcast’s latest dirty trick (requiring everyone to get a “free” standard-definition cable box in order to deprive basic cable viewers of receiving their local channels in HD for free), someone that I KNOW to be a pro-business republican, and they respond with “THAT’S NOT FAIR! WHY DOESN’T SOMEONE TELL THEM THEY CAN’T?!” Because you are so careful to elect republicans who WON’T, that’s why. You gotta love this. Screw up our elections, erase our bill of rights line by line, imprison Americans for speaking out against the occupier of the Oval Office, oh well… but screw with their TV…
By the way, to all cable customers out there who are having this dirty trick pulled on them… the answer is to hook an indoor digital antenna to your HDTV. Then you can receive whatever digital broadcasts are being sent out in your area… including the locals in HD… and still receive the same standard-definition cable through your box that you’ve always received.
Bottom line of this train of thought is that I don’t ever expect to slavishly agree with EVERYTHING that a sitting president does. If I did… well, I’d be a republican, wouldn’t I?
The next thing that I’d like to say… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I AM NOT A PARTISAN. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I did not vote for Barack Obama out of blind party loyalty, I voted for him because I thought then (and think now) that he’s the best thing for America. The best thing that we’ve seen in a LONG TIME. Hate to sound melodramatic, but he may well be the last hope to restore America to our pre-Reagan glory.
I think that the reason that my republican loved ones, friends and acquaintances have a hard time with this is because they cannot imagine voting for anyone who is not a republican. I have jokingly said that 30% of America will march robotically to the polls every election day and pull the lever for whatever republican candidate is on the ticket – if it’s GWB, or John McCain, or Sarah Palin or Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Harpo Hitler. (His middle name WAS Harpo, wasn’t it?)
I heard perhaps the greatest evaluation of this partisan mess that we’ve gotten our country in today from General Richard B. Meyers interviewed on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show”. He said that the republicans and the democrats have turned into the bloods and the crips – just with better tailors.
This is how non-partisan I am… in 2000, if the republicans had done the SANE thing and nominated John McCain… this was the pre-kissing-Bush’s-ass-back-when-he-was-a-genuine-maverick McCain… I would have voted for McCain in a HEARTBEAT. And I think that if we had elected President McCain instead of allowing usurper Bush to steal the election, that we wouldn’t be in HALF the mess that we’re in today.
So do I have buyer’s remorse? No. Do I think that we’re better off than if the new and vastly unimproved McCain had been elected? Yes. Do I agree with everything that the President has done? No, nor do I expect to. I have a brain, you see, and a working Bullshit Detector.
Think, brothers and sisters.
Be critical.
Don’t swallow the bullshit without a fight.
Peace.
Randal
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Washington Gay Rights Bill
I have been endeavoring, not always successfully, to cut down on my swearing lately. I have formed the opinion that it is disrespectful to those who don’t want to hear it. It is in line with my feelings on exhibitionism (those who wish to see should be able to, those who do not wish to should not have to). It kind of goes along with what Daniel Webster said about personal rights… “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” This includes cutting down on swearing when I’m alone and even in my thoughts. If I allow myself to swear alone or swear in my thoughts (which is the hardest habit to break) then it’ll be more difficult not to swear in public.
Having said that…
Bearing that in mind…
Washington state recently passed “gay rights” legislation (I prefer to think of it as “human rights”) that allows gay couples more or less all of the advantages of marriage, without the word or the document. Just another proof to my point that we need to separate the legal concept of marriage, which is primarily about property from the religious concept which is primarily about reproduction. Of course, as soon as the bill was passed, there were groups of religious fanatics lined up to scream about it. Which prompts me to politely ask, with all due respect,
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU FUCKING MORONS?! What the hell are you trying to accomplish? Is your hope that if you squeeze these people tight enough, they’ll eventually go back into their uncomfortable, tiny little closet and quit requiring you to THINK?
Look, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and I’ll keep on saying it until it sinks into YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULLS! Marriage in the time of Christ is not marriage as it is known today. Most notably, in the time of Christ, the religious authority WAS the civil authority. There was no separation of church and state. And if you don’t LIKE the separation of church and state, then move to Saudi Arabia.
So, in the time of Christ when a man (typically in his twenties) wanted a bride, he would go to a neighboring village and pay the “bride price” (couple goats and mule or whatever), basically BUYING the teenaged girl of his choice. Once he got her, it was their responsibility to make as many children as possible. If she displeased him, or if SHE couldn’t have kids (couldn’t be his fault – the white stuff was still coming out of him) then he would just go buy a SECOND bride. Or a third. Or a fourth. Yes, polygamy was alive and well in the time of Christ regardless of what the moronic revisionists would have you believe. Oh, and divorce? Well, Jesus said that a man could divorce a woman in a case of “fornication”. A woman could divorce a man in a case of… er… she couldn’t, actually. But bear in mind that Christian laws were not in place in the time of Christ – Mosiac laws were. And, according to the laws of Moses, a man could divorce a woman for pretty much any damned thing that he wanted. She could only divorce him if… er… well, she couldn’t.
Today, a couple meets, dates, becomes lovers (or not), gets legally married (or not), has kids (or not) and maybe gets a divorce.
Or is it about reproduction? Is that what you whiners are on about? Well, then, you’d better start lobbying against ME being able to get re-married… I had a vasectomy shortly after my divorce.
Oh, which reminds me – why the hell aren’t you idiots working harder to keep married breeders together? More than HALF of the hetero marriages in this country end in divorce. Know how many gay marriages have so far? ONE! You believe in the sanctity of marriage? Then stop drooling over that idiotic TV show “Cheaters” and start becoming active in keeping heteros together. I’ll believe that you have something to say about who gets married once you prove that you can do it without FUCKING IT UP!
The single, un-Christian idea that this all comes down to is that these people and groups are trying to control the lives of others. Jesus spoke very harshly about this, people. Like saying that a tomb should not be beautiful on the outside while inside it’s all decaying corpses? Or washing the OUTSIDE of a bowl while leaving muck and crap on the inside? Or how about the simple idea of tending to the BEAM (very big thing) in your eye before trying to remove the MOTE (very small thing) from your neighbor’s eye.
Or, in a way that maybe even you rich, greedy, suburbanite “Christians” can understand – mow your lawn before you tell me to mow mine, okay stupid?
All right. So I start trying to curtail my swearing again as of… NOW!
Peace.
Randal
Having said that…
Bearing that in mind…
Washington state recently passed “gay rights” legislation (I prefer to think of it as “human rights”) that allows gay couples more or less all of the advantages of marriage, without the word or the document. Just another proof to my point that we need to separate the legal concept of marriage, which is primarily about property from the religious concept which is primarily about reproduction. Of course, as soon as the bill was passed, there were groups of religious fanatics lined up to scream about it. Which prompts me to politely ask, with all due respect,
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU FUCKING MORONS?! What the hell are you trying to accomplish? Is your hope that if you squeeze these people tight enough, they’ll eventually go back into their uncomfortable, tiny little closet and quit requiring you to THINK?
Look, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and I’ll keep on saying it until it sinks into YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULLS! Marriage in the time of Christ is not marriage as it is known today. Most notably, in the time of Christ, the religious authority WAS the civil authority. There was no separation of church and state. And if you don’t LIKE the separation of church and state, then move to Saudi Arabia.
So, in the time of Christ when a man (typically in his twenties) wanted a bride, he would go to a neighboring village and pay the “bride price” (couple goats and mule or whatever), basically BUYING the teenaged girl of his choice. Once he got her, it was their responsibility to make as many children as possible. If she displeased him, or if SHE couldn’t have kids (couldn’t be his fault – the white stuff was still coming out of him) then he would just go buy a SECOND bride. Or a third. Or a fourth. Yes, polygamy was alive and well in the time of Christ regardless of what the moronic revisionists would have you believe. Oh, and divorce? Well, Jesus said that a man could divorce a woman in a case of “fornication”. A woman could divorce a man in a case of… er… she couldn’t, actually. But bear in mind that Christian laws were not in place in the time of Christ – Mosiac laws were. And, according to the laws of Moses, a man could divorce a woman for pretty much any damned thing that he wanted. She could only divorce him if… er… well, she couldn’t.
Today, a couple meets, dates, becomes lovers (or not), gets legally married (or not), has kids (or not) and maybe gets a divorce.
Or is it about reproduction? Is that what you whiners are on about? Well, then, you’d better start lobbying against ME being able to get re-married… I had a vasectomy shortly after my divorce.
Oh, which reminds me – why the hell aren’t you idiots working harder to keep married breeders together? More than HALF of the hetero marriages in this country end in divorce. Know how many gay marriages have so far? ONE! You believe in the sanctity of marriage? Then stop drooling over that idiotic TV show “Cheaters” and start becoming active in keeping heteros together. I’ll believe that you have something to say about who gets married once you prove that you can do it without FUCKING IT UP!
The single, un-Christian idea that this all comes down to is that these people and groups are trying to control the lives of others. Jesus spoke very harshly about this, people. Like saying that a tomb should not be beautiful on the outside while inside it’s all decaying corpses? Or washing the OUTSIDE of a bowl while leaving muck and crap on the inside? Or how about the simple idea of tending to the BEAM (very big thing) in your eye before trying to remove the MOTE (very small thing) from your neighbor’s eye.
Or, in a way that maybe even you rich, greedy, suburbanite “Christians” can understand – mow your lawn before you tell me to mow mine, okay stupid?
All right. So I start trying to curtail my swearing again as of… NOW!
Peace.
Randal
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Beating Our Economy to Death
The Neoconpoops are at it again, wanting you to believe that President Obama is beating the economy to death with his “socialist” ideas, based on the fact that the Dow Jones average has been on the decline for the last two months since he took the oath of office. But let’s take a step back and look at the FACTS, okay? I realize that, to neonconpoops, facts are anathema. Rupert Murdoch, one of their heroes (and CEO of F-word News Network) disdains what he calls “Fact-based journalism”. So let’s look at some of these facts, shall we?
First off, the so-called “socialism” of Barack Obama.
He has been accused of socialism because he wants to increase taxes on the rich and decrease taxes on the poor and middle-class. I have heard a lot about redistribution of wealth from these morons in connection with President Obama. The fact is that in America’s so-called Golden Age, the 1950’s, corporations provided around 55% of our operating costs, with taxes on the middle class and foreign investment and loan accounting for the other 45%. Today, the corporate contribution is less than 5%! The remaining 95% of our operational income comes from taxes on you and I and money from foreign countries, most noticeably China. In a time when our national security is of prime interest to us, we are deeply in debt to foreign countries, many of whom have proven themselves hostile in the past.
And if you want to talk about redistribution of wealth, let’s talk about the redistribution that’s happened over the last eight years. With all of the tax cuts and loopholes opened for corporations and the wealthy, we have seen the largest redistribution of wealth in human history – FROM the poor and middle-class TO the rich. In other words, Mr. Bush proved himself to be Dooh Nibor (Robin Hood in reverse). And yet, amazingly, no one cried SOCIALISM! Perhaps that’s because the ones in whose favor it worked didn’t want to bring attention to it, and the rest of us were just too damned busy watching Survivor Tuscaloosa. I guess that if you were going to call this something, it would be RE-redistribution of wealth.
Another argument for President Obama’s so-called socialism is that he is using socialist tools, such as using tax dollars to put Americans to work, in an attempt to jump-start our failing economy. This is not socialism, this is long-term economic stimulus. And calling him a socialist because he’s using these tools is like saying that if you use an engine tool, like a socket wrench, to fix something in your house that you’re trying to turn your house into a car. It’s simply not the case. I say let him use whatever tools he can in his attempt to rescue our economy from this Bush-inflicted depression.
As far as the stock-market goes…
Let me explain the concept of “trends” in the stock market. If you look at a chart of the stock market, make a straight line from point to point, you have what’s called a trend. You can do this with any chart, by the way, not just the stock market. I did it with a chart of my blood pressure one time to show the downward trend to the doctor, and he loved it. I explain that so that I can tell you that the trend of the stock market from the end of 2007 until now has been downward. There have been some spikes, but mostly it was down, down and down.
Losing money, in other words.
To be more specific…
From the end of January 2009 until the closing bell today, the stock market has lost 1282 points. So that’s a terrible loss over about a month and a half? Then to be fair, let’s point out that in ONE month, October, 2008, under the watchful eye of Mr. Bush, whom these “newsmen” apparently considered terrific for the economy, the stock market lost TWICE THAT MUCH. So if Mr. Obama is terrible for our economy for losing 1282 points in about fifty days, what does that make Mr. Bush for losing 2483 points in thirty days?
Peace.
Randal
First off, the so-called “socialism” of Barack Obama.
He has been accused of socialism because he wants to increase taxes on the rich and decrease taxes on the poor and middle-class. I have heard a lot about redistribution of wealth from these morons in connection with President Obama. The fact is that in America’s so-called Golden Age, the 1950’s, corporations provided around 55% of our operating costs, with taxes on the middle class and foreign investment and loan accounting for the other 45%. Today, the corporate contribution is less than 5%! The remaining 95% of our operational income comes from taxes on you and I and money from foreign countries, most noticeably China. In a time when our national security is of prime interest to us, we are deeply in debt to foreign countries, many of whom have proven themselves hostile in the past.
And if you want to talk about redistribution of wealth, let’s talk about the redistribution that’s happened over the last eight years. With all of the tax cuts and loopholes opened for corporations and the wealthy, we have seen the largest redistribution of wealth in human history – FROM the poor and middle-class TO the rich. In other words, Mr. Bush proved himself to be Dooh Nibor (Robin Hood in reverse). And yet, amazingly, no one cried SOCIALISM! Perhaps that’s because the ones in whose favor it worked didn’t want to bring attention to it, and the rest of us were just too damned busy watching Survivor Tuscaloosa. I guess that if you were going to call this something, it would be RE-redistribution of wealth.
Another argument for President Obama’s so-called socialism is that he is using socialist tools, such as using tax dollars to put Americans to work, in an attempt to jump-start our failing economy. This is not socialism, this is long-term economic stimulus. And calling him a socialist because he’s using these tools is like saying that if you use an engine tool, like a socket wrench, to fix something in your house that you’re trying to turn your house into a car. It’s simply not the case. I say let him use whatever tools he can in his attempt to rescue our economy from this Bush-inflicted depression.
As far as the stock-market goes…
Let me explain the concept of “trends” in the stock market. If you look at a chart of the stock market, make a straight line from point to point, you have what’s called a trend. You can do this with any chart, by the way, not just the stock market. I did it with a chart of my blood pressure one time to show the downward trend to the doctor, and he loved it. I explain that so that I can tell you that the trend of the stock market from the end of 2007 until now has been downward. There have been some spikes, but mostly it was down, down and down.
Losing money, in other words.
To be more specific…
From the end of January 2009 until the closing bell today, the stock market has lost 1282 points. So that’s a terrible loss over about a month and a half? Then to be fair, let’s point out that in ONE month, October, 2008, under the watchful eye of Mr. Bush, whom these “newsmen” apparently considered terrific for the economy, the stock market lost TWICE THAT MUCH. So if Mr. Obama is terrible for our economy for losing 1282 points in about fifty days, what does that make Mr. Bush for losing 2483 points in thirty days?
Peace.
Randal
Friday, March 6, 2009
Second Thoughts on the Republican Party
“Mr. Bush and Mr. Gingrich and their ilk don’t represent the Republican party any more than the group of nutballs who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 represent the Muslim faith.”
Do you have a knife and fork I can borrow? I need to eat those words. The first part of them, anyway. It is still my belief that terrorists do not represent the Muslim faith. The Republican party, on the other hand…
I stated before the last set of primaries that I hoped that Mr. Bush represented the bottom of what I perceived as a very weird barrel as far as Republican presidential nominees went. I was heartened when they nominated the previously very moderate and intelligent John McCain as president, then rapidly disheartened when they nominated the extremely weird, unintelligent Sarah Palin as vice president. As the election progressed and the Republicans accused Barack Obama of being everything from an extreme Muslim to a socialist, my respect for the party sunk like a lead balloon. Then came November, and the Republicans got spanked at the polls. They got gutted like a fish. Then I thought ‘okay, THAT’S gotta sober ‘em up.” Well, of course, I was wrong. When Rash Limburgher made his idiotic, disrespectful, treasonous statement about wanting President Obama to fail, it was bad enough. But he is, after all, an “entertainer”, although I consistently fail to glean any entertainment out of anything that he does. Some Republican representatives (Phil Gingrey, Michael Steele, etc.) even took Limburgher to task for this nonsense, and I was heartened. Then they apologized. Not to the president, but to LIMBURGHER! And then along comes CPAC, where Limbugher gets applause for saying that President Obama is behaving in an unconstitutional way (after supporting Mr. Bush’s wiping his ass with the Constitution) and misquoting the Declaration of Independence as the Preamble to the Consistution.
Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors, I was wrong about the Republican party. This party, which I was raised to revere (although not emulate) has become small-minded, hard-hearted, mean-spirited, sarcastic, anti-intellectual and idiotic. It has become almost laughably ridiculous. It has become the party of the rich, the home-grown terrorist and the snake-handling fanatic. It has become a cowardly, vicious, puling little thing that MUST DIE!
To those of my Republican friends who feel like the party is headed in the wrong direction… and I know that you’re out there… LEAVE THE PARTY. Go to the Libertarians. After all, that party is nothing more than Republicans who smoke pot and admit to liking porn. Start a new state-rights party. Do SOMETHING, just refuse to patronize this pathetic little creature that the party has become. If you stop feeding it, it will DIE. Pack up all of your memorabilia of how the party used to be… how it’s SUPPOSED to be… fiscally conservative, in favor of individual liberties and small government, cautious in both war and peace… take all of these things that we love about the Republicans and LEAVE THE PARTY. They are no longer that way. What Gingrich and Bush and the rest have done to the party is similar to us coming home from work one day and discovering that our wife has had a sex-change operation. I mean, she’s still the same person, but still…
Okay? And I apologize to any of my Republican friends and this post offends. You guys know me. And I am still, for the record, fiercely non-partisan. Before I can start calling myself a Democrat, THAT party has to grow more balls than just Barack Obama’s.
Peace.
Randal
Do you have a knife and fork I can borrow? I need to eat those words. The first part of them, anyway. It is still my belief that terrorists do not represent the Muslim faith. The Republican party, on the other hand…
I stated before the last set of primaries that I hoped that Mr. Bush represented the bottom of what I perceived as a very weird barrel as far as Republican presidential nominees went. I was heartened when they nominated the previously very moderate and intelligent John McCain as president, then rapidly disheartened when they nominated the extremely weird, unintelligent Sarah Palin as vice president. As the election progressed and the Republicans accused Barack Obama of being everything from an extreme Muslim to a socialist, my respect for the party sunk like a lead balloon. Then came November, and the Republicans got spanked at the polls. They got gutted like a fish. Then I thought ‘okay, THAT’S gotta sober ‘em up.” Well, of course, I was wrong. When Rash Limburgher made his idiotic, disrespectful, treasonous statement about wanting President Obama to fail, it was bad enough. But he is, after all, an “entertainer”, although I consistently fail to glean any entertainment out of anything that he does. Some Republican representatives (Phil Gingrey, Michael Steele, etc.) even took Limburgher to task for this nonsense, and I was heartened. Then they apologized. Not to the president, but to LIMBURGHER! And then along comes CPAC, where Limbugher gets applause for saying that President Obama is behaving in an unconstitutional way (after supporting Mr. Bush’s wiping his ass with the Constitution) and misquoting the Declaration of Independence as the Preamble to the Consistution.
Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors, I was wrong about the Republican party. This party, which I was raised to revere (although not emulate) has become small-minded, hard-hearted, mean-spirited, sarcastic, anti-intellectual and idiotic. It has become almost laughably ridiculous. It has become the party of the rich, the home-grown terrorist and the snake-handling fanatic. It has become a cowardly, vicious, puling little thing that MUST DIE!
To those of my Republican friends who feel like the party is headed in the wrong direction… and I know that you’re out there… LEAVE THE PARTY. Go to the Libertarians. After all, that party is nothing more than Republicans who smoke pot and admit to liking porn. Start a new state-rights party. Do SOMETHING, just refuse to patronize this pathetic little creature that the party has become. If you stop feeding it, it will DIE. Pack up all of your memorabilia of how the party used to be… how it’s SUPPOSED to be… fiscally conservative, in favor of individual liberties and small government, cautious in both war and peace… take all of these things that we love about the Republicans and LEAVE THE PARTY. They are no longer that way. What Gingrich and Bush and the rest have done to the party is similar to us coming home from work one day and discovering that our wife has had a sex-change operation. I mean, she’s still the same person, but still…
Okay? And I apologize to any of my Republican friends and this post offends. You guys know me. And I am still, for the record, fiercely non-partisan. Before I can start calling myself a Democrat, THAT party has to grow more balls than just Barack Obama’s.
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Regulation
Okay, so let me see if I can get this straight…
Regulation is useless for business because businesses, being run by basically good people will do basically the right thing all by themselves and, therefore do not need regulation, right? Also, since having no regulation is good for business, that means that it’s good for America, right? Because what’s good for business is good for America, yeah?
Okay, first off, BALDERDASH! This line of reasoning/argument only goes to prove John McCain’s statement that we are the “United States of Amnesia”. At the beginning of the last century, when we really started making the switch from an agrarian nation to an industrial nation, there was a LOT of stuff going on that was GREAT for business, but LOUSY for America. Virtual slavery of children and women. Massive unsafe working conditions. Lousy pay, and “company stores” designed to keep their employees in debt to them functionally forever. Twelve or fourteen hour work days. Seven day work weeks. And if you lost your arm in the machine that you were working on, well that’s just too damned bad. The company can’t use you anymore, and we’re sure as HELL not going to pay you if you can’t work. Oh, well, you can always beg or have your wife or daughter turn tricks. And then there was always debtor’s prisons and workhouses… All of these evils ended – not because of the goodness of Corporate America’s heart – but because of GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION. REGULATION.
Second off, why do we have laws? Why do we have laws on the books saying that we shouldn’t kill or rape each other or take each other’s stuff? I mean, we’re all basically good people who, if left to our own devices will do the right thing, right? I mean, if murder laws were taken off of the books tomorrow, I wouldn’t run right and out and kill anyone.
Okay, maybe one. But that’s it. I promise.
So I would like to make this counter-argument… if regulations for businesses are unnecessary because they can be relied upon to regulate themselves, then I would argue that, by continuing the same logic, ALL laws that regulate actions should be stricken down. If corporations can be trusted to behave themselves, surely WE can as well.
Right?
Peace.
Randal
Regulation is useless for business because businesses, being run by basically good people will do basically the right thing all by themselves and, therefore do not need regulation, right? Also, since having no regulation is good for business, that means that it’s good for America, right? Because what’s good for business is good for America, yeah?
Okay, first off, BALDERDASH! This line of reasoning/argument only goes to prove John McCain’s statement that we are the “United States of Amnesia”. At the beginning of the last century, when we really started making the switch from an agrarian nation to an industrial nation, there was a LOT of stuff going on that was GREAT for business, but LOUSY for America. Virtual slavery of children and women. Massive unsafe working conditions. Lousy pay, and “company stores” designed to keep their employees in debt to them functionally forever. Twelve or fourteen hour work days. Seven day work weeks. And if you lost your arm in the machine that you were working on, well that’s just too damned bad. The company can’t use you anymore, and we’re sure as HELL not going to pay you if you can’t work. Oh, well, you can always beg or have your wife or daughter turn tricks. And then there was always debtor’s prisons and workhouses… All of these evils ended – not because of the goodness of Corporate America’s heart – but because of GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION. REGULATION.
Second off, why do we have laws? Why do we have laws on the books saying that we shouldn’t kill or rape each other or take each other’s stuff? I mean, we’re all basically good people who, if left to our own devices will do the right thing, right? I mean, if murder laws were taken off of the books tomorrow, I wouldn’t run right and out and kill anyone.
Okay, maybe one. But that’s it. I promise.
So I would like to make this counter-argument… if regulations for businesses are unnecessary because they can be relied upon to regulate themselves, then I would argue that, by continuing the same logic, ALL laws that regulate actions should be stricken down. If corporations can be trusted to behave themselves, surely WE can as well.
Right?
Peace.
Randal
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
In His Image
I find myself thinking more and more about the dichotomy of creation and evolution, and how, to my mind, there is no logical conflict between the two.
I again heard the argument recently that evolution could not be simply because the Bible says that man was created in God’s image, and God is not a lower form of life.
The assumption that I must proceed from here is that they are speaking of our physical form. Again, as always when discussing the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I must ask you to try to put yourself in the mindset of a man who lived three to four thousand years ago. To that person, the human body and the processes of the human body were almost complete mysteries. But now, knowing what we know of the human body today, this idea begs some questions for me.
If man’s physical image were copied from the physical image of God, does that mean that God has a penis? The Christian fundamentalist argument is that the penis is for procreation and elimination of liquid waste, with pleasure being a secondary use. God does not need to procreate in the human way. As a matter of fact, although the Jews believed in a feminine energy to counterbalance the masculine energy (called the Shekhina), the Christians have utterly eliminated this belief. And does God need to (to put it bluntly) piss? I would think not. And God is presumably above the need for sexual relief that men have. So why would God have a penis? And what about an appendix? I know, I know, I can’t seem to stop talking about the appendix. So if God has a penis and an appendix, the question would be “Why does He have these things?”
And then there’s the belly button. I’m always amused by the question of if Adam and Eve had bellybuttons. The bellybutton, for those who don’t know, is how a baby receives nutrients from its mother in utero. So why would God have or need a bellybutton? He was not born of woman, so what use would he have for one? And if he didn’t have one and we DO, then are we truly created in God’s image?
Then there’s the fact that all men look different from one another. My physical image is different from Rush Limbaugh’s physical image… his physical image is different from Charles Durning’s physical image… his physical image is different from Aiden Quinn’s physical image… so which among us was created in God’s image?
And then there’s the prickly question of race. Up through fairly recently, people of non-Caucasian heritage were considered animals by the Caucasians. We know now that that is inaccurate AT BEST. So that begs an entirely new line of question. We know that, biologically, the race classified as “Negroid” (black people) were around for a LONG TIME before any of the rest of us. Does that mean that God is black? That would come as quite a shock to white so-called “Christian” racists. I find it difficult to believe that if God actually HAS a physical body that it is Caucasian.
And then there’s the prickly question posed by Genesis 2 that says that man AND woman were created together, in God’s image. Does that make God male or female? Both? Neither? If one or the other, then not all of us were created in His image. If both or neither, then none of us are.
So, do me a favor, if you can, anti-evolutionists. Answer these questions for me. If you can’t, then please drop this insane argument. It makes no sense.
My belief… and the only belief that makes logical sense to me… is that the “image” in which we were created is the image of God’s spirit. Our soul. Our intellect. It is the one thing that ALL humans, regardless of their physical image, have in common. Our bodies evolved from a lower order of creature, as science dictates, but we were touched by the divine spirit.
Peace.
Randal
I again heard the argument recently that evolution could not be simply because the Bible says that man was created in God’s image, and God is not a lower form of life.
The assumption that I must proceed from here is that they are speaking of our physical form. Again, as always when discussing the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I must ask you to try to put yourself in the mindset of a man who lived three to four thousand years ago. To that person, the human body and the processes of the human body were almost complete mysteries. But now, knowing what we know of the human body today, this idea begs some questions for me.
If man’s physical image were copied from the physical image of God, does that mean that God has a penis? The Christian fundamentalist argument is that the penis is for procreation and elimination of liquid waste, with pleasure being a secondary use. God does not need to procreate in the human way. As a matter of fact, although the Jews believed in a feminine energy to counterbalance the masculine energy (called the Shekhina), the Christians have utterly eliminated this belief. And does God need to (to put it bluntly) piss? I would think not. And God is presumably above the need for sexual relief that men have. So why would God have a penis? And what about an appendix? I know, I know, I can’t seem to stop talking about the appendix. So if God has a penis and an appendix, the question would be “Why does He have these things?”
And then there’s the belly button. I’m always amused by the question of if Adam and Eve had bellybuttons. The bellybutton, for those who don’t know, is how a baby receives nutrients from its mother in utero. So why would God have or need a bellybutton? He was not born of woman, so what use would he have for one? And if he didn’t have one and we DO, then are we truly created in God’s image?
Then there’s the fact that all men look different from one another. My physical image is different from Rush Limbaugh’s physical image… his physical image is different from Charles Durning’s physical image… his physical image is different from Aiden Quinn’s physical image… so which among us was created in God’s image?
And then there’s the prickly question of race. Up through fairly recently, people of non-Caucasian heritage were considered animals by the Caucasians. We know now that that is inaccurate AT BEST. So that begs an entirely new line of question. We know that, biologically, the race classified as “Negroid” (black people) were around for a LONG TIME before any of the rest of us. Does that mean that God is black? That would come as quite a shock to white so-called “Christian” racists. I find it difficult to believe that if God actually HAS a physical body that it is Caucasian.
And then there’s the prickly question posed by Genesis 2 that says that man AND woman were created together, in God’s image. Does that make God male or female? Both? Neither? If one or the other, then not all of us were created in His image. If both or neither, then none of us are.
So, do me a favor, if you can, anti-evolutionists. Answer these questions for me. If you can’t, then please drop this insane argument. It makes no sense.
My belief… and the only belief that makes logical sense to me… is that the “image” in which we were created is the image of God’s spirit. Our soul. Our intellect. It is the one thing that ALL humans, regardless of their physical image, have in common. Our bodies evolved from a lower order of creature, as science dictates, but we were touched by the divine spirit.
Peace.
Randal
Monday, March 2, 2009
Wishing for Failure
I saw a clip on television today of D. L. Hughley talking with Michael Steele, the new head of the GOP. Mr. Hughley took Mr. Steele to task for the words of Republican mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh that he wanted President Obama to fail. Mr. Steele asked how that differed from the last eight years, and Mr. Hughley’s response was “true”. See, that’s the modern re-PUNK-lican tactic – don’t answer a question, simply make reference to something that happened before, or something unrelated from what you really don’t want to talk about.
Well, Mr. Steele, since Mr. Hughley lacks the knowledge, the guts or the wherewithal to correct you, I will do it on his behalf.
At no time in the last eight years, to my knowledge, did ANYONE in the public eye wish that Mr. Bush would fail. And I regularly watch kind of the “big three” of liberal media voices – Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
So let’s be utterly clear here… we did not wish Mr. Bush to fail. We wanted him to succeed. Wanting the leader of our country to fail is borderline INSANE. And yet, even without our bad tidings, Mr. Bush DID fail… spectacularly… over and over and over again. He failed in Afghanistan, he failed in Iraq, he failed African-Americans by not DEMANDING that their votes be counted in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. He failed our economy by giving more and more money to the rich while robbing our public coffers and creating the largest debt in American history. (And by the way, to any GOP member out there who wants to bitch about how much President Obama is increasing our debt with his programs to help those left behind by the Bush administration and to try to help put our economy back on track, you better take a look at the reasons that your party created this mess to begin with.)
So, are we clear now, Mr. Steele? No media representative of the left wished for Mr. Bush’s failure (at least not publicly). That’s how this hypocritical balderdash that Limbaugh spouts is different from what’s gone on in the last eight years.
So please… to you and any other republican who feels like defending this nonsense… get your head out of Rush Limbaugh’s fat, drug-addicted ass and think for yourselves.
Peace.
Randal
Well, Mr. Steele, since Mr. Hughley lacks the knowledge, the guts or the wherewithal to correct you, I will do it on his behalf.
At no time in the last eight years, to my knowledge, did ANYONE in the public eye wish that Mr. Bush would fail. And I regularly watch kind of the “big three” of liberal media voices – Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
So let’s be utterly clear here… we did not wish Mr. Bush to fail. We wanted him to succeed. Wanting the leader of our country to fail is borderline INSANE. And yet, even without our bad tidings, Mr. Bush DID fail… spectacularly… over and over and over again. He failed in Afghanistan, he failed in Iraq, he failed African-Americans by not DEMANDING that their votes be counted in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. He failed our economy by giving more and more money to the rich while robbing our public coffers and creating the largest debt in American history. (And by the way, to any GOP member out there who wants to bitch about how much President Obama is increasing our debt with his programs to help those left behind by the Bush administration and to try to help put our economy back on track, you better take a look at the reasons that your party created this mess to begin with.)
So, are we clear now, Mr. Steele? No media representative of the left wished for Mr. Bush’s failure (at least not publicly). That’s how this hypocritical balderdash that Limbaugh spouts is different from what’s gone on in the last eight years.
So please… to you and any other republican who feels like defending this nonsense… get your head out of Rush Limbaugh’s fat, drug-addicted ass and think for yourselves.
Peace.
Randal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)