As background for this article, I present you with this review of "The Conyers Report," written for Amazon.com by Edwin C. Pauzer, of New York City. (With thanks to Amazon. Clicking on the link will take you to this review, and provide you with access to purchasing the book. Emphasis within the review, below, is mine. --Ed.):
In his book "Armed Madhouse..." author Greg Palast quotes Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. "It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes." After you read the dry but factual 116 pages of this book, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that the election was stolen from presidential candidate John Kerry and given to Mr. Bush. The book is divided into facts (what happened) and analysis (the motive and how it could have happened). It starts with Ohio's secretary of state, a republican, Kenneth Blackwell who promised to "fill in the blanks" regarding voting anomalies but has kept silent in the finest tradition of "political omerta." He has refused to initiate any investigations, and has tried his best to have the ballots destroyed. Here's some of what Conyers uncovers: Republican challengers were at every precinct causing massive voting delays. This is called caging, and it is illegal. Republican challengers targeted 97% of new voters in black areas. They only challenged 14% of new voters in white areas. There were voting machine lockdowns preventing observation of ballot counts. This too is illegal. There were flipped votes. Voters reported that they had voted for Kerry and watched their vote register for George Bush. These "glitches" were called "calibration problems." The number of votes vs. voters. In many places the number of voter turn-out exceeded 100%. (?) In one case nearly 19,000 votes were added after all precincts reported. There were repairs being made by the electronic voting machine company while the ballots were being recounted. This too is illegal. In Ohio. The exit polls which asked the people how they voted, showed that Kerry had won. Men and women voters gave a majority to Kerry. These polls are usually very accurate. So, how did exit polls that put Kerry ahead 52% to 48% turn around after the ballots were counted? After reading this book, you can only arrive at one conclusion: There's something rotten in the state of Ohio. Update: Blackwell ran for governor in Ohio this past November and was defeated. Those ballots he could not manage to hide.
If you can possibly read the above review, and the book itself, and not realize that nothing less than American democracy is at stake, then you are most assuredly part of the problem. And if you do recognize this threat, but do nothing to help counter it -- BEFORE the General Election in November, 2008 -- then you are very assuredly no part of a very desperately-needed solution!
This article could turn long and tedious, if I filled it with more documentation. And then fewer people would read and act upon it, which would defeat its purpose. So I suggest that you please do this:
Do a Google search of these words, exactly as presented, and you'll have an abundance of information: "diebold" "voting" "fraud".
You'll have all the proof that you need! (And, should you run across anyone who poo-poos this, or claims it's "conspiracy theory," ask yourself these questions: "With which party does he affiliate himself?" And, "WHY is he so anxious to keep you from learning the facts?")
It seems almost too easy, but if enough of us do it, it cannot help but work!
Contact both of your U.S. Senators, and your Representative in Congress, and tell them that this must be done no later than during the springtime of 2008, so as to allow all of the relevant states enough time to prepare and adjust for it:
All states using electronic voting devices must ensure that those machines generate a paper vote simultaneously with the electronic one, and that the voter must be able to see and verify the printed vote before leaving the polling place.
All electronically talllied votes must be regarded as preliminary -- just to give the country an idea of how things seem to be developing, on Election Night. And then ALL of the paper ballots must be tallied under strict supervision from representatives of all parties on the ballot. ONLY after ALL of those paper ballots have been properly and honestly tallied, can victories be declared. And the tallied PAPER ballots, and their tally, are the only OFFICIAL results. No matter how lopsided the election may appear to be.
(Please enclose a copy of the above book review, and ask that the legislation be written to explicity and enforcably PROHIBIT all of the abuses that are cited within it.)
If this Congress -- which currently has a Democratic majority in both houses, and therefore may be our very last hope for heading off permanent disaster, passes this legislation... but then President Bush were to veto it -- that should set off a firestorm from the electorate! Since the only possible reason to do that would be to wreck the democratic process!
Finally -- Use the Internet to promote the above measure. Post to blogs. Use text messaging. Phone in relentlessly to radio talk shows.
If democracy in the USA is to survive into 2009 -- it is up to us -- WE, the PEOPLE -- to get the job done! Please don't make the mistake of thinking this can be put off. Because it almost certainly is now or never! Do or die!
The Internet address of this article (URL) is spelled out below. Please e-mail it as far and wide as you possibly can! Thanks -- and good luck to us all!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
It's not a brand-new book, but it's an intriguing one. And I stumbled upon it accidentally as I was doing a Google search to determine which of the world's nations still were hobbled by mindless taboos regarding casual sex.
Published in 2001, Taboo: Sex, Religion & Magick, by Christopher S. Hyatt, Ron Milo Duquette, Diana Rose Hartmann, and Gary Ford appears to be quite an unusual and delightful digression from the usual treatment of sex, as noted by several customer reviewers. Including this review from Amazon, written by a person calling himself, "A Customer:"
The following is a review of this spicy little bombshell written by Leticia Marquez of Magical Blend Magazine:
Robert Anton Wilson says of "Taboo"...
"I assure you that what you are about to read is obscene, lewd, blasphemous, subversive, and very interesting, and that all right-thinking people will agree that it should be banned, bowdlerized, censored, suppressed, and burned by the public hangman...I think it is safe to predict that almost every organized group of idiots in this country will regard this book as extremely dangerous."
Wilson is probably right, Taboo's challenge to unite sexual and religious practices probably won't go over well with the New Right. But for the rest of us, the authors present a roller-coaster of a read complete with case histories, theories, and secret sex rituals of interest to both "adepts' of esoteric sex cult societies as well as "ordinary" people. Full of interesting quotations and anecdotes from alchemists, sex magicians, and vampires -- not to mention old Yawey himself -- this is a fascinating a colorful work that seems predestined to upset many people in our sex-negative society. Those who believe that taboos are made to be broken, however, should find Taboo and enjoyable and entertaining read.
The above review is pretty typical, and any contribution to breaking down the abject mindlessness of taboos regarding sex gets my vote! Taboos born of ignorance indeed do deserve to become extinct. Just as quickly as possible. (And it's good to keep in mind that those whom the reviewer called "right-thinking people," above, are the repressive loons of the RRR Cult -- the "Religious" Radical Right. And that's not the way that normal Christians typically think. Normal Christians generally are sensible and tolerant people. And the noisy and noisome pseudo-Christians of the RRR Cult comprise only 5% of the American population.)
So how does the USA stack up in terms of making progress out of the repressive morass of Puritanism, according to this book's authors? Well -- you'll have to read the book.
And remember, seven more years have gone by since this book came off the press, so hopefully, even more progress in that direction has already taken place since then.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Shelby Steele, author of "A Bound Man," shares something with Barack Obama that most blacks don't. They both have white mothers and black fathers. But beyond that, the similarities fade and diverge. Obama grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii in more modern times, after segregation in the American South had become a savage blot in the history books, and the older Shelby grew up while segregation still prevailed -- ironically on the south side of Chicago (now Obama's home turf), which might as well have been Birmingham, Alabama for all the racial tensions that prevailed there during that earlier era.
Steele is concerned that blacks are almost expected by both their peers, to be either white-accomodating "bargainers," or more edgy and confrontational "challengers." Often, the bargainers are seen by their fellow blacks in a disparaging way, because today's bargainers used to be regarded derisively as "Uncle Toms" by their peers. Sellouts to their own race. And are still perceived that way by millions of blacks.
Steele is proud of his race, and of his black heritage, and rightly so. He looks back on such people as George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., and a host of other accomplished blacks as major contributors to both their race and to society as a whole. He says that, even though he's of mixed racial blood, he grew up in a society where the "one drop rule" prevailed. If a person had so much as one drop of black blood (much less the 50% that he has), they were black, plain and simple. No wiggle room. Black! That was it!
Both Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby are excellent example of successful bargainers who have managed to very successfully have great appeal to both races. However, Cosby has more recently seemed to have become far more of a challenger. Which Steele thinks is a mistake, because Cosby had been riding a very successful horse as a bargainer... and now both races really don't quite know what to expect from this edgier and more confrontational person.
"Masks" are the problem, as Steele sees it. Most people in those two races still think of themselves racially first, and simply as individual human beings second. And more often than not, a black person finds himself compelled to wear a "mask" that hides his true sentiments, in order to get along. Obama wears the mask of bargainer almost all the time among whites, but when speaking to crowds made up mostly of blacks in Harlem and South Carolina, he's worn the challenger mask.
Challengers usually are more successful in getting along with their peers because that's where most blacks think that their power lies, as a race. That if they confront, they are perceived as more capable of achieving their goals. Obviously, that doesn't play too well with whites, even though that's what most whites in the 21st century have come to expect that from the blacks.
This year, blacks have a real problem. Steele points out that for a long time, now, 92% of blacks have voted Democratic, because social liberalism has been good for them, and their advancement in society, in many ways. But now what do they do? They are faced with choosing between a black candidate for the first time ever, and a woman, for the first time ever, who both are social liberals -- to possibly become their next President of the United States. Obama has race going for him, among the blacks, along with vigorous youth and a drive to make real changes in Washington. On the other hand, Hillary's husband, Bill, has for a long time been regarded by blacks as "the first black President," because he had such strong empathy for them, and sought to help with their problems. If you're black, and vote Democrat, how do you make a choice like that, in the primaries?
Further complicating things for Obama (and favoring Hillary's chances) are two other racial factors. The first is "hidden" racism among whites. In Iowa, under the caucus system, people literally had to stand up and be counted, publicly, in front of their precinct neighbors. What white American wants to be identified as a racist in this century; to be labeled as a bigot by his very own neighbors? That would be worse than embarassing. It would be humiliating! Especially in a 96%-white, northern state like Iowa. So Obama, having this advantage going for him, won the Iowa Democratic Caucuses. But New Hampshire -- now that was an entirely different breed of cat! In that state, the voters were able to vote their secret hearts and sentiments in the privacy of a voting booth, with secret ballots. And if a given white voter were afflicted with racism, he could let that all hang out in the ballot box, with impunity, and no fear of ever being found out. There's no way to prove that this was the key factor, but I'm guessing that this very well may be why the pollsters and pundits were so egregiously far off in their predictions of a huge Obama victory, even scant hours before Hillary beat him by three percentage points and won the primary. Publicly, the white voters -- including whatever racists were among them -- had been coming out in droves to see and hear Obama. But in the case of the racists, their motivation may just have been great curiosity about this strange phenomenon. And then came the secret balloting...
The second racial problem that Obama faces, and will face more and more intensely as the race progresses -- especially if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and then the Republican attack dogs come after him (which might make the Swift-boating of John Kerry in 2004 seem like heaven by comparison!) -- is his "mask" management. More than ever, now, he'll be walking an increasingly tenuous tightrope as he chooses carefully between accomodating the blacks, who can make or break him in this race, and making the whites (who can do likewise) comfortable, by alternating between being an edgy challenger and an appeasing bargainer. Oprah Winfrey is an attractive and established bargainer, and most people of both races are delighted with her. But Obama doesn't have that luxury. All Americans want to know what to expect of him if he gets to be President, and racism in this nation, unfortunately, still is far from being interred
Complicating this even further for Obama is media scrutiny. In the past, he's been able to be a challenger in front of a black crowd in Harlem, and get away with it. But from here on, whichever mask he wears will be seen by the whole nation, virtually instantaneously, thanks to a hungry news media that will be watching him, just like all the other front-runners. like a hawk. And will be broadcasting sound bites like mad. To the entire nation! And that doesn't even take the additional exposure afforded by the Internet into consideration.
My conclusion in light of all of this is that, unless he is an extremely talented politician, Obama may not be able to keep switching masks and pull this off. People will increasingly be demanding to know the REAL Obama, and learn precisely what he intends to do for the country. Very specifically. And that will make it difficult or impossible to reconcile with both races in a still-too-racially-sensitized nation.
It's almost midnight at the ball. The REAL Obama will soon have to stop swapping masks, and show us all who he truly is. And in the case of race, that means letting us all know whether, at bottom, he's a bargainer or a challenger. And then we'll all have to see how that plays out.
If he gets very lucky, he may get to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination. But if that happens, then from that moment on, he'll need to become a miracle-worker to keep from being converted into dog meat by a Republican Party that has proven itself to be very adept at deception and viciousness.
I'm sorry to have to draw this conclusion, because it's a sad commentary on a society that still has a lot of racial growing up to do, but for all the reasons above, I believe that on the Democratic side, only Hillary is truly electable to the Presidency in November. Since John Edwards no longer has much of a chance of being nominated. And then only if she can sucessfully run the gauntlet certain to be emplaced by potent and proven Republican corruption, and their hackable electronic voting machines.
If America is to turn away from the downhill slide to tyranny that the Republicans have potently initiated, I truly believe that there is only one fork remaining in that road, and that our ONLY chance will be to elect a Democrat to the White House this November. And it will really help if the nation can become determined between now and then to chuck a LOT of Republican rascals out of Congress at the same time! (And that has to be their own rascals, or it won't work. Whining about other peoples' rascals accomplishes nothing! If you have a Republican rascal in Congress that can be voted out this year, then it's up to you to get that job done. Your very own rascal. Ousted at the ballot box by you! THIS year, let's DO it!)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
If a woman shows emotion, she's weak. If she doesn't, she's conniving. So tell me, how do we win? How do we play the game and beat a man, any man, at anything? Because as soon as you show that you're tough, intelligent and ready to take them on, they start bashing your brains in. And women are worse. We don't seem to want other women to be leaders. As long as this double standard isn't focused on and brought to light, it won't stop. Cry? Who wouldn't?!! Being relentlessly attacked because of the fact that you want to be president is one thing. But attacking her for being a woman who wants to be president is hard to watch. There could be a dialogue about this -- that would use up some air time. But no -- it's more fun to watch her have a so called "break down." What year is it again?
My Comment: You're right on the money with this! Hillary can't win for the losing. She shows she's human, and she gets stomped on for it. Same if she talks tough. Then she gets accused of being a witch with a capital "B." What do people expect from her? Lukewarmness? THEN who would vote for her? And -- it never ceases to amaze me how vicious women can be toward other women. E.g., I'll bet women get referred to as "sluts" far more often by their fellow women than by men. (Usually behind their backs!) Go figure!!
Are we going to have to wait for the 22nd century for society to grow up?!?
To appreciate the full magnitude of the content of this article, I encourage you to click on each of its internal links, as you read it.
America's internal terrorists are the leaders and lemmings of the RRR Cult. The UN-Christian "Religious Radical Right." America's very own, personal-liberties hating, home-grown version of the Taliban.
And as unlucky as America is to be infested by it... Europe is lucky enough to have completely escaped it! Talk about dodging a very sociopathic bullet!
Ironically, it is the very structure of the RRR that saved Europe from it! And which will continue to protect the hundreds of millions of people living on that very fortunate continent. Because the RRR Cult is different from all other cults, in one very important way. A factor that enabled it to infest American society and threaten our freedoms -- while simultaneously preventing it from infesting Europe.
You see, almost all other cults recruit their lemmings and immediately isolate them with the other lemmings, within the cult. Sometimes so extremely as to isolate them from most of the rest of society. But the RRR's crafty leaders did exactly the opposite, right from Day One, back in the 1970s -- when the late Jerry Falwell (to his eternal shame) started the cult, and called it the "Moral Majority. (What a misnomer that was, since the cult he started was never even remotely a majority... and today still comprises only 5% of the U.S. population. Nor was there anything "moral" about it.) The RRR primarily targets the more ignorant folks who have already been conned into populating the congregations of fundamentist churches. I could have said "Christian fundamentalist churches," but those are often far more UN-Christian than Christian. After all, how Christian can any church or denomination be which rejects Christ's clear command that we show compassion to our neighbors? But instead espouses and promotes such loathsome agendas as the one that seeks to force girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will? Which would deprive millions of them of countless of their pre-ill-timed-pregnancy future opportunities.
The cult infests those churches from within -- and then, here is the key to its success -- it leaves its lemmings in place, where they can influence and convert their other congregants into adopting the cult's heinous agendas.
The United States has always had a pretty stable percentage of Christian believers, and a solid percentage of those are church-goers. That's a good thing in its own right, and as a Christian myself, I could hardly think otherwise. In fact, per a recent Gallup Poll, fully 83% of Americans profess Christianity. OF that number, 94% are actual, normal, senisible, relatively-intelligent and generally-tolerant, actual Christians. While the remaining 6% are the lemmings of the RRR Cult, who subscribe to the loathsome agendas of the cult's oligarchical leadership and organizations.
No one seems to be sure why there is such a disparity between the Americans and the Europeans with respect to numbers of Christians, and numbers of church-goers. But I have a theory.
European history goes back thousands of years, and except for Native Americans, that of the USA only 400. And the beginning of this nation was hugely influenced by the ultra-conservative (to the point of being downright nutty) Puritans. Any ducking-stool mentality that can be found in today's RRR cultists can likely be traced back through time to that cult.
So Europe was far luckier. At least as far as being threatened by a ubiquitous, continent-wide, liberty-threatening cult is concerned. Because, thanks to its long history and its great diversity, the following important comments and aspects pertain to it:
The best available empirical research reveals is that secularization is unambiguously observable in most of Western Europe, but not in the United States. In fact, religion remains remarkably strong in the United States. For instance, more than 95 percent of Americans claim to believe in God or a universal spirit or lifeforce, compared to 61 percent of the British; nearly 80 percent of Americans claim to believe in heaven, compared to 50 percent of the British; 84 percent of Americans believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, compared to 46 percent of the British (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Comparing additional traditional religious beliefs, over 70 percent of Americans believe in life after death, compared to 46 percent of Italians, 43 percent of the French, and 35 percent of Scandinavians (Gallup 1979). And over 70 percent of Americans believe in bell, compared to only 28 percent of the British (Greeley 1995). Concerning traditional religious participation, nearly 45 percent of Americans attend church more than once a week, compared to 23 percent of Belgians, 19 percent of West Germans, 13 percent of the British, 10 percent of the French, 3 percent of Danes, and only 2 percent of Icelanders (Verweij, Ester, and Nauta 1997).
[Phil Zuckerman wrote]: "The last time I was in Europe, I was told by two different sets of friends that we would be 'going out to the church' for the evening. In both cases (one in Oban, Scotland, and the other in Cologne, Germany) the churches turned out to be religious institutions in facade only; both were former churches that had been gutted and turned into popular pubs and night clubs. Indeed, throughout much of Western Europe--with the unique exception of Ireland -- churches are being turned into bars, discos, warehouses, and laundromats. Not only is church attendance way down, but so is religious belief."
* In Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1851, 60 percent of the adult population attended church; in 1995 that was down to 11 percent (Bruce 1999).
* In 1899, 98 percent of Dutch citizens claimed to belong to a particular church. In 2001, only 40 percent did so (Grotenhuis and Scheepers 2001).
* Only 34 percent of West Germans, 31 percent of Belgians, 24 percent of the British, 17 percent of the French, 11 percent of Finns, and 9 percent of Icelanders attend church at lease monthly (Inglehart, Basanez, and Moreno 1998).
* Only 6 percent of Danes, 7 percent of Swedes, and 9 percent of Norwegians attend church at least monthly (Bruce 2000).
* Only 2 percent of Danes, 2 percent of Swedes, and 2 percent of Norwegians attend church on an average Sunday (Bruce 2000).
* 12 percent of Danes claimed to "never attend church" in 1947; that was up to 34 percent in 1996 (Bruce 1999).
* 32 percent of Swedes and 33 percent of Norwegians claim to "never" attend church (Bruce 2000).
* The percent of the population in the United Kingdom in 1900 which had attended Sunday school as children was 55 percent; in 2000 it was down to 4 percent (Bruce 2002).
* Among West Germans in 1967, 42 percent believed that Jesus is the son of God; this dropped down to 29 percent in 1992; among East Germans, the number drops as low as 17 percent (Shand 1998).
* 43 percent of the British in 1940 claimed to believe in the existence of a personal God; that dropped to 26 percent in 2000 (Bruce 2002).
The referenced sources of the above information, and the data itself, can be found here.
Very interestingly, if one of the Puritans had chopped a hole in the bottom of their ship while it was still in mid-Atlantic, he likely would have been one of the greatest American heroes of all time -- without ever having even reached America! And we'd never even have known his name.
Without the influence of the Puritans at the very inception of American society, it is highly probable that the United States today would be very much like Europe in this regard... and that the RRR Cult would never have existed.
And that if Jerry Falwell had existed, and had tried to organize that loathsome faction under those circumstances, he almost surely would have been told, very properly, to go fly a very large kite.
Finally -- what about Canada? With whom we share a common border over 4,000 miles long. Did it escape the RRR Cult, despite its adjacency and proximity? For the most part, yes! Very fortuitously! As pointed out by Zuckerman:
"Interestingly enough, Canada maintains a sort of middle ground between the United States and Western Europe concerning traditional religious belief: In 1995, 70 percent of Canadians claimed to believe in God or a universal spirit, standing between over 90 percent of Americans and 61 percent of Britons; 61 percent of Canadians claim to believe in heaven, standing between 78 percent of Americans and 50 percent Britons (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Concerning church participation, 30 percent of Canadians attend church weekly (Bruce 1999), standing between 45 percent of Americans, 19 percent of West Germans, and 13 percent of Britons."
"Interestingly enough, Canada maintains a sort of middle ground between the United States and Western Europe concerning traditional religious belief: In 1995, 70 percent of Canadians claimed to believe in God or a universal spirit, standing between over 90 percent of Americans and 61 percent of Britons; 61 percent of Canadians claim to believe in heaven, standing between 78 percent of Americans and 50 percent Britons (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Concerning church participation, 30 percent of Canadians attend church weekly (Bruce 1999), standing between 45 percent of Americans, 19 percent of West Germans, and 13 percent of Britons."
It wasn't as good as having a vast ocean seperating them from the land of the Puritans, as was the case for the Europeans. But developing as a separate nation undoubtedly afforded the lucky Canadians a great deal of protection against such repressive and irrational hatefulness. A strong enough filter, through which an insufficient amount of the cult's poison was able to pass, to result in an infestation.
For example -- there is nothing more harmless than same-sex marriage (SSM). It doesn't make people gay. It doesn't cause gay people to have sex any more often than they already do. (Not that that's anyone else's business than theirs; RRR cultists are some of the world's worst busybodies. And busybodyism & abject ignorance go together!) And there is no way in the world that SSM could do on one whit of harm to opposite-sex marriage, or to the marriage of any opposite-sex couple. Any notion that opposite-sex marriage somehow needs to be "defended" against it is one of the RRR Cult's most blatant and loathsome lies. Yet -- in the still-too-Puritanical USA, that hateful cult has scared Congress and state legislatures into passing so-called "Defense of Marriage" laws and state constitutional amendments. How utterly MINDLESS!
But by stark comparison, Canada fully legalized same-sex marriage. With no significant opposition from within its borders. As has a growing number of European nations. Intelligence and the RRR Cult are mutually-exclusive. Nor does the RRR emanate any compassion. Just a ducking-stool mentality and hateful irrationality.
There is very little that is Christian about America's very own Taliban.
Just as segregation infested and poisoned the South, 50 years ago, this insidous, loathsome, and ignorance-laden cult threatens vital and important liberties of tens of millions of Americans today. Blacks were the targets before. Today, it's gays and girls & women. And just as society outgrew and rejected segregation, we need to fight, outgrow, and reject the toxic RRR Cult and its hate-laden agenda today. What a sad commentary on America that such an infestation can still manifest itself and survive into the 21st century!
Just as segregation infested and poisoned the South, 50 years ago, this insidous, loathsome, and ignorance-laden cult threatens vital and important liberties of tens of millions of Americans today. Blacks were the targets before. Today, it's gays and girls & women.
And just as society outgrew and rejected segregation, we need to fight, outgrow, and reject the toxic RRR Cult and its hate-laden agenda today. What a sad commentary on America that such an infestation can still manifest itself and survive into the 21st century!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
This is my proposal for solving America’s illegal immigration problem without bloodshed and at virtually no expense.
The first presidential candidate who states categorically that he will do THIS just might win the nomination, and then the election, handily!
Before getting into that though, I remind everyone that any person who's not already a U.S. citizen who enters the USA without documentation has broken a serious law. The moment he does that, he becomes a criminal! Anyone who thinks that these criminals should be given some sort of "amnesty" needs to ask himself this question: "Would you favor an amnesty program for burglars and bank robbers?"
A criminal act is just that. Something for which a penalty must be paid, in almost all cases. This plan provides a reasonable way for those 14 million criminals to avoid prosecution by simply choosing to leave. Any reasonable proponent of amnesty should love that! And so should everyone else! Here it is:
Pass a federal law that mandates a minimum of one year of penitentiary time and a $25,000 minimum fine to be assessed to any employer who either hires, or continues to employ, any illegal (undocumented) alien. These penalties to be enforced upon both the personnel manager who does the hiring and the head of the company, for companies that have personnel managers. No exceptions! The buck stops at the top!
This would make it impossible for any illegal aliens (other than a handful of them having sugar daddies) to survive in the USA, and thus, we could expect to see almost all 14 million of them scrambling back south of the border within a month or so after this law takes effect.
NO wall or fence necessary, and NO risk to any officers, since there'd be no need for forcible deportations.
Finally, rescind, retroactively, the citizenship status of all "anchor babies," regardless of their age, even if they've become adults. If they were born here to illegals, then they are illegal, too, and are therefore automatically rendered unemployable. This already is constitutionally legitimate. Per the U.S. Constitution, those "anchor babies" never had legal citizenship status in the first place. (Thus, no "anchor.) See the response to this article that immediately follows it in this posting.
This plan would end almost ALL illegal immigration overnight, and do so bloodlessly, at virtually no taxpayer expense.
Once back outside of the country, they could apply for legal immigration (including legitimately-obtained work visas), and, in the process, get in line behind everyone else who's doing it the right way.
And the first candidate of either party to promise their serious intention to accomplish this could very well become our next President!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In Yahoo! Answers, a person calling himself "hockey g" gave this in-depth and substantive response to the above proposal. (If he gives me permission to give him proper credit by citing his actual name, I’ll replace the paragraph you now are reading with that.) ---
I agree 100%. Rescind all citizenship that was unconstitutionally granted in the first place. The 14th amendment, and specifically the citizenship clause, was carefully worded such that it denied citizenship to "foreigners and aliens."
This is how it was introduced to the 39th congress by the author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard. If you read the debates that ensued, as recorded in the Congressional Globe, it is clear to anyone of average intelligence that the Congress that passed the 14th amendment did not intend to hand out citizenship like some kind of cheap carnival prize.
The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))
The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
There are other cases referring to minor details of the question. In essence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal.
That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.
Monday, December 31, 2007
When you "re-elect" us, we Republicans will continue to implement the following platform:
o We will make laws promoting the Judeo-Christian family unit and preventing all alternative or vicarious ways to channel your sexuality.
o We will persecute people who are homosexual, those who do not adhere to the Christian religion and those who are not white.
o We will force girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will. Despite the fact that the Bible never condemns abortion, nor does it ever defend human life in any form that exists prior to birth, as people. If anyone challenges the irrationality and/or hatefulness of this stance, we will respond by lying that "the Bible says so."
o We will force women to have unwanted children and make them work while their children are growing up alone.
o After forcing single pregnant women to bear unwanted children, we further will force them to give them up for adoption, and then later drive those kids into the military to be cannon fodder for the unconstitutional wars that we lyingly start and then perpetuate.
o We will never make direct references to Biblical passages in which Jesus commands His followers to show compassion for their neighbors. With a platform like this, we could never begin to defend ourselves if challenged on that!
o We will disavow, disregard, and disrespect the value and worth of any and all non-Judeo/Christian religions, and disparage and discredit them whenever we think we can get away with it.
o Even though none of us have ever yet discovered any way that opposite-sex marriage (which we will continue to deceptively call "traditional") could possibly need to be "defended" against same-sex marriage, we will continue the charade of claiming that the latter is harmful. If anyone challenges us on this, we'll cite the Bible -- while omitting, of course, any mention of the fact that the Bible never appointed nor authorized any person or group to act as a Gestapo to enforce its precepts versus society in general. And of course, in keeping with that, we will never make any reference to 1 Cor. 5:12-13!
o We will take the gloves off large trans and multi-national corporations and allow them to run roughshod over you and the environment.
o We will give these conglomerate businesses the ability to push down your wages as far as possible.
o We will allow companies to eliminate your health benefits and pensions.
o We will continue to expand the powers of the executive branch and render oversight by Congress irrelevant.
o We will abolish unions to take away any voice and collective power you have as workers.
o We will create a new class of people called the 'working poor' who work full time jobs but can't afford basic living expenses.
o While we're lowering your standard of living, we will remove all of the public services and the safety net that you'll need to survive.
o We willl destroy competition and promote monopoly power, particularly in the media, energy, prison and military manufacturing industries.
o We will allow, promote, create and support immense monopolies that crush small and medium sized businesses.
o We will represent and implement the will of these massive monopolies no matter what the people say or want.
o We will increase our stranglehold on national, state and local government and continue to make them more subservient to business.
o We will penalize you if you are not married, and we will make it more difficult for you to form relationships that might lead to marriage.
o We will ensure mass unemployment, start wars and send poor children off to these wars so that we can make more money.
o Multiculturalism is fine as long as it works to our advantage. At all other times, it is anathema, and should be publicly decried as being detrimental to American "values."
o We will expand the reach of law, the powers of law enforcement and allow government officers to operate in complete secrecy.
o We will imprison you and your children longer and longer for petty offenses and we will torture you when we think it is needed.
o If your skin is not white, we will tolerate you only as long as you work for very low wages and cower in front of us.
o We will tax corporations and rich people less and give them much more in return for campaing donations.
o We will tax the middle class more and give them much less in return whether they donate to campaigns or not.
o We will do away with the constitution and the rights of individuals in favor of the rights of corporations.
o We will make sure our seniors have to work to make ends meet and we will ensure that they will have little to no free health care available.
o We will continue to cut services and funding for disabled or wounded war veterans and their families.
o We will make sure that your child is educated only enough for menial work or entry into the armed forces.
o We will use your tax money to put our children through private schools while your children get the worst education possible.
o We will lie to you at every turn.
o We will make all our decisions in secret. If you start sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, we will throw you in jail with no bail, charges or lawyer.
o Even though the rest of the world easily sees our hypocrisy, and loathes America for it, we will continue to imprison suspects for years at secret locations in foreign lands, and at Guantanamo, torture them at will, and deprive them of the fair trials they otherwise could expect our Constitution to guarantee them if they were on U.S. soil.
o Because we were able to get away with it so blatantly in 2000 and 2004, we will continue with the methods we've developed to ensure perpetual Presidential power and occupancy of the White House. And of course, whenever challenged on this by anyone, we will simply refer to them as "conspiracy theorists." Our nation of sheep hasn't yet learned to become properly suspicious of those who are derisive of conspiracies. Someday, they may start wondering just WHY a person would be so anxious to make fun of conspiracies, and realize that conspiring isn't all that difficult, and happens all the time. But until that day arrives, if ever, we'll just continue with the formula for dealing with this that works.
o Even though we probably have already accomplished this KEY objective, we will continue to stuff the U.S. Supreme Court with anti-personal-liberties "conservative" justices every chance we get. Now that the High Court no longer has an egalitarian majority, for the first time in 80 years, we can have our way with the entire system!
o If you disagree with us, you are a traitor and will be ostracized, imprisoned and killed at our discretion. You are irrelevant, but we do like to play the game of getting you to vote for us.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
"You simply wish to kill peoples' freedom to live their lives as they wish, shackling them to live as you demand that they do. You wish to kill not their bodies, but something more important, their hopes and their dreams.
"I have seen almost nothing except this type hate and vitriol spewed forth from the postings of many Anti-Choice 'persons' [in Usenet]. Not all are like this, but many are. This type of post demonstrates the desire for control over women, their subservience, and the intolerance of any ideas except their own. They would fit right in with the Taliban.
"People don't like hate, and they don't like hateful agendas. It is people like [those described] above that make people see the true face of the far religious right, and of the anti-abortion movement. People are repulsed by such hate, and will join the opposite end of the political spectrum just to distance themselves from it. It's for the reasons of this type of hate and forced subservience required that the far religious right and the anti-abortion movements will eventually fall into disrepute and be effectively swept under the carpet of history where it belongs, with such groups and the KKK and other hateful, segregationist groups."
I originally posted this in several Usenet Newsgroups on July 3, 1998, and repeated it, unchanged, in 2006, and now present it here, unchanged, today -- Dec. 30, 2007. It was written as a challenge and refutation of a narrow-minded viewpoint on casual sex. For those interested in the subsequent discussions, it can be found in Google's Usenet archives under the subject header, "Sex outside of marriage is a sin," in these groups: alt.abortion, alt.abortion. inequity, alt.christnet, alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, alt.fan.jesus-christ, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, alt.religion.christian.lutheran, alt.support.abortion
To keep track of the participants, the following attributes apply for each comment:
None = Craig Chilton
> = Lisa D. (Open-minded virgin, by choice.)
>> = Craig Chilton
>>> = Theodore M. Seeber (Draw your own conclusion.)
>>>> = Craig Chilton
>>>>> = Theodore M. Seeber
>>>>> It's selfishness to have sex when you don't want a child. <<<<<
>>>> A totally unrealistic attitude. <<<<
>>> Only for people who have no self control. <<<
>> Self-control applies to actions that people may be tempted to take, but really don't want to do. Such as eating a sundae while on a strict diet. If enjoying recreational sex is a self-control issue for some people, I'm very glad NOT to number among them. <<
> In some ways it is a matter of self-control. Eating a sundae while you're on a diet is giving in to temptation, where the consequences are something you'd rather not deal with. Same with recreational sex. Temptation... (maybe) consequences you'd rather avoid. <
Life without a bit of living on the edge would be akin to television programming if the likes of Donald Wildmon and his scissors-happy American Family Association ever got its way with it (Perish forbid!!!): Pablum.
People who live TOTALLY sheltered lives from all risks probably deserve the boring existence they have in return. (Or, as a button I once saw, read: "Chastity is its own punishment!) :)
To each his own, of course, but for me, VIVA safe recreational sex. Some risks, but at an acceptable level.
Sex is the world's favorite form of recreation.
> I thought that was soccer? :-) <
Scarily, you may be right... at least among soccer fans. Seems that a poll of men was taken lately (caveat: I have no idea how reliably), and 80% polled said that... get this!... they would prefer to WATCH (not play... only watch) World Cup Soccer if given the choice between that, or a having a date on which they could do anything they wanted with the girl of their dreams. 80% !!!!!!
I found that to be utterly incomprehensible! I mean, I know that I'm not really a fan of any sports, but how could any guy (assuming he's heterosexual) choose watching any GAME over such a DREAM date??!
Gals... if men are really coming to that, romance is dead!
The GOOD news: If a larger percentage of women are themselves romantic, then the 20% of us guys who are romantic have a better shot at finding Miss Right.
> Abstinence is not a religious issue (at least not for me). <
Nor for me.
> It's a safety and self-respect issue. Of course, I don't mean to say that everyone who has sex has no self-respect... <
I'd hope not! I certainly know that I have no such problem!
> ...but I respect myself more for being able to wait. <
To each his own. If that works for you, go for it.
> Some people see sex as a neutral, just-for-fun activity; I see it as more. <
It can be... but it doesn't have to be.
>>> Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the ability of the human mind and the value of sexual deprivation to spirituality. <<<
>> I don't see your point with the former. As for the latter, I cannot even imagine there being any "spiritual" value to be derived from going without sex. As I see it, there is nothing positive or beneficial about going without sex -- spiritual or otherwise. <<
> I disagree. I feel that my decision to remain abstinent has been very beneficial on an emotional level. <
Been there. Done that. Was abstinent until age 25. Wished afterward that I hadn't totally blown all the great opportunities I'd had between 15 and 25!! Given the chance to do it over again, I'd never make that mistake again, thank you!
> At the very least, I am able to avoid conflicts that occur when two people have different ideas about sex; ideas that don't surface until after the fact. As I said, for some, sex is just fun... for me it's not that simple. <
>>> To draw on a completely different tradition for a second, Zen Buddhism asks monks to be celebate on their journey to enlightenment for a reason. Perhaps if our society was not quite as sexually-oriented, we'd have fewer problems with sexual deviancy. <<<
>> Remind me never to become a Zen Buddhist monk! :) <<
> Me neither. I'd hate to shave my head, and those orange robes... not my colour. LOL !! <
>> As for sexual "deviancy??" Among consenting adults, no such thing exists. What they choose to do together is absolutely no one else's business . <<
> Or what they choose to do by themselves. Hee hee. <
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The article below was posted on March 24, 1996, by Dr. Bruce Forest, to the following Usenet Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.religion.christian, alt.feminism, and alt.abortion.inequity. Even though other significant polls have been done since, this remains one of the most fascinating and revealing ones done on the topic of abortion. With that in mind, we now get to revisit those findings with this re-posting of Bruce's report and analysis.
(Bruce hasn't posted to the abortion groups for a long time, now, so I have no idea whether or not any of his own e-mail addresses, which he provided in his sign-off, below, are still valid.)
"Harris Poll on Abortion Rights... Prolifers have Lost the War"
by Dr. Bruce Forest
Here is the latest Harris data on abortion and abortion rights.
Design and Analysis by Louis Harris Conducted by Peter Harris Research Group, Inc., New York, N.Y.
The Results... (methodology below) --
The issue of a woman having the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion with the advice of her doctor is as clear-cut and decisive an issue as any in America in the mid-1990s. Up until 1985, the division on this issue was close nationwide. But, after the Webster decision, the balance shifted from a close 48% to 46% in favor to a pro-choice majority that climbed to the mid-50 percent range and then into the 60 percent range in the 1990s.
In this survey, on the basic right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, with the advice of her physician, the division nationwide is 71% to 24% in favor of choice. By the same token, an even more decisive 74% to 20% opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. There is little doubt that the margins favoring abortion have been heightened by public outrage over the recent murders at abortion clinics, condemned by 94% of the public. Three in every four people favor the Justice Department sending in marshals to take action to protect abortion clinics from attack.
Abortion has become a major, front and center issue with women in America. And it is an active issue in elections. In 1992, for example, the actions of the Republican Platform Committee in Houston on the choice issue triggered a defection from President Bush of white suburban women in key big northern states from which he never recovered. Over 1 in 6 voters -- 17% of the electorate -- say they are certain they would shift their vote away from a candidate who took a position opposite their own on the right to choose. That 17% comes down 71% to 29% on the side of those who are Pro-Choice. This means that 12% of the vote nationally could switch against an anti-abortion candidate, while only 5% would switch against a Pro-Choice candidate. This represents a potential swing of 7 full points in the standing in a presidential race, meaning a 50-50 contest could be turned into a 57% to 43% landslide for a Pro-Choice candidate on that issue alone.
The vast majority of these potential switchers are women, 60% of the total.
The Poll methodology ---
In all, a cross-section of 1364 adults was interviewed nationally and a cross-section of 800 adults was interviewed in California. However, in order to have special breakdowns of key groups of women, it was decided that the national sample would consist of 955 women and 409 men. In the final results, men were weighted up to 48% of the national sample. In California, the unweighted sample consisted of 443 women and 357 men, but this sample was weighted 50% men and 50% women, according to correct census estimates on gender in the California adult population. A copy of the complete question- naires used, along with annotated overall results for each question are included in the back of this report. The national questionnaire contained questions on all of the subjects in the survey. The California survey included only the questions dealing with affirmative action, abortion, and political behavior, along with full demographics. Inquiries about special breakdowns of the results can be obtained from the office of Peter Harris Research Group, Inc. in New York at (212)-427-8072.
The sampling, field work, computer tabulations, charts and tables, and report preparation were contracted with the New York research firm of Peter Harris Research Group. All women were interviewed by female interviewers and all men by male interviewers, in order not to introduce cross-gender bias. Interviewing was conducted by telephone using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system operated by MKTG, Inc. of East Islip, N.Y. Louis Harris has served as an independent consultant and analyst on the study. Mr. Harris has had long experience in surveying racial and gender issues, including affirmative action. He wrote the questionnaires and the analysis of this report. He must bear the responsibility for the content, wording, and analytic portions. This study follows the practice of releasing the results of every question asked and the wording used in each question, as well as the question sequence. This is in the best practice of the field of public opinion research. Field work on the study was conducted from March 16 to April 3, 1995.
I think we have little worry about the prolifers [Anti-Choicers] having a hope in hell of restricting abortion.
-- Bruce Forest...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = My Comment on December 29, 2007
The chances are good that if that same Harris Poll were taken again today, the results probably would be very much the same. Little or nothing has happened since 1995 to make Americans more hateful. In fact, if anything, we should be more egalitarian than ever, having just gone through seven long years of a highly-bigoted Bush Administration, and seeing the repulsiveness of hatefulness, first-hand.
That said, though, I wish I could share, today, the optimism that Bruce Forest held 12 years ago about the future of the right of all girls and women to access the hugely-important and -beneficial remedy of abortion. He wrote his comments before GW Bush poisoned the U.S. Supreme Court against personal liberties by appointing two young repressive, RRR-Cult-oriented justices to it... for life! Prior to those appointments, the Court had had an egalitarian majority for 80 years. But often only by a thread. Many of its most important freedom-defending decisions were 5-4 cliffhangers. From now on, we can expect only hatefulness from the High Court on social issues. Perhaps for as long as any reading this may live. It is a radically-different Court now. A Court the likes of which almost NO one alive today has ever seen at work.
For example -- even though nothing could possibly be more harmless than same-sex marriage, we can count on the Court's coming down against it, first chance it gets, if it continues in its current composition. It'll be the diametric opposite of what we could have expected from the former Court. Instead of benevolently bestowing Emancipation, it'll be wreaking mindless and hateful Repression.
On the abortion front, the greatest danger is to the greatest act of Emancipation since Lincoln freed the slaves -- Roe vs. Wade. The Court could reverse that in a heartbeat at any time, and hurl America spinning and reeling back into the Dark Ages of FORCED gestation.
At this point, we have just ONE chance remaining, and even it is a tenuous one, for the damage done by Bush may already be irreversible. We must elect a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008, and hope and pray that he'll have the chance to re-set the Court, with new appointments, to its former egalitarian status. If another Republican President gets the chance to make more appointments, it'll be all over for sure.
If that happens, it'll be time for us to dust off our copies of George Orwell's 1984, and refresh ourselves on the society to come.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
This was originally posted a decade ago, and is re-presented now in this blog, almost 100% free of changes, since almost nothing it contains has changed over the last 10 years. (Except, of course, for the fortunate aspect that society has significantly outgrown the described syndrome, over those years) --
Original posting: Wed, Dec. 31, 1997, to these Usenet groups: alt.teens.16-18, alt.teens.sexuality, and alt.abortion, as "The Virginity Mystique."
Has anyone ever given serious consideration as to why a significant portion of an otherwise fairly-enlightened society persists so much in regarding virginity to be something special?
Before I ever ate my first slice of pizza, I was a "pizza virgin." Before I ever bowled, I was a "virgin" in that respect. Likewise for sex.
But every time I left one type of virginity behind, the effect invariably was that my life had been enhanced, and my horizons had been expanded.
Putting virginity on a pedestal is precisely the same as ascribing value to ignorance. "Losing" one's virginity is to gain a new dimension in one's life, whether it be with pizza, sex, bowling, or anything else.
The only significance of whether one is a virgin or not with respect to sex is a totally artificial, arbitrary, and meaningless one. The only change that scrapping sexual virginity produces is to enhance one's life experiences -- unless you've been brainwashed into some primitive and pointless belief system. (Which you can just as easily scrap.)
In short, "virginity" is no big deal. It is not something that one "loses." It is something that one should willingly seek to get rid of, just as we so willingly get rid of other forms of virginity with first experiences of any sort. Pizza, bowling, or whatever.
Therefore, if you regard sexual virginity to have any special significance, all I can say to you is this:
Fer Pete's sake, get a life! And then enjoy it !!
(Please feel free to copy and distribute this to any and all who are hung up on that silly syndrome.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 22, 2007 Update:
When this article originally ran, some people made the mistake of thinking that I openly advocated that virgins simply scrap virginity for the sake of getting that done. Looking it over again now, I can see how they got that impression. So now I'll clarify that.
What I meant then, and still mean now, is THIS:
Retaining one's sexual virginity for virginity's sake -- as though there were supposedly some "special" quality, or some sort of "purity" associated with it, is abjectly stupid. That said, however, there are some good and valid reasons for doing so. And the most valid of those is the fact that abstinence still is the greatest defense against catching or transmitting STDs. If such a reason as that is given for retaining virginity, that's good thinking. But... if a person does so because they've been conned into thinking that there's some sort of "purity" associated with virginity -- then that is about as dumb a reason as anyone could fall for. A person's life is exponentially more fascinating after he or she has become sexually-active. It's good to realize this early on, rather than to discover it years later, and then find yourself reflecting on all the wonderful opportunities that had been irretreivably blown and lost forever -- that could never be recaptured!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
In one of the Internet's many well-known public forums (fora) today, December 20, 2007, I had pointed out that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee carries heavy political baggage, in that he is both a hateful bigot of the "Religious" Radical Right (the RRR Cult) who seeks to destroy the personal liberties of tens of millions of Americans for NO good reason... but also very much deserves his nickname of "Tax-hike Mike" -- having raised taxes three times more in his 10 years in office as Governor of Arkansas than had been done in the previous 12 years.
It's hard to imagine anyone's packing more bigotry and sheer ignorance into one short paragraph than a person calling himself "Loyal" (his alias) did in his response to my pointing out those facts. He wrote:
"Wow! Thanks for giving people still more reasons to vote for Huckabee. I am very pleased that he is not only against the senseless slaughter of people because they are too young to defend themselves within their mother's womb, but he is against giving homosexuals special preferences for their sinful lifestyle. It is about time someone stood up to homosexuals and child killers."
To see just HOW loony all his mindless hate-tripe truly is, just click here!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Right off the bat, in the beginning minutes of tonight's season finale of "Survivor - China," one of the female contestants' posterior was fuzzed-over for apparently coming too close to treating the audience of a view of "too much" cheek. How ASSinine is that?!
We have both the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and most of our witless and hyperconservative loons in Congress to blame for that -- since the FCC can heavily fine "offending" networks and stations for airing verbal and visual instances of things that are against their idiotic and censorious rules... and since Congress not long ago (following Janet Jackson's fun Super Bowl halftime reveal) dramatically increased the penalties that the FCC would have to impose.
Most of the developed/civilized world gets to see most of the more popular programs that air on U.S. television... especially the game and reality shows. So once again, the world has gotten to see just how moronic American institutions often are.
The supreme irony of all this is this: on an individual, case-by-case basis, Americans are some of the randyest and most sexually-active people on the face of the earth! With the exception of a relative handful of the RRR cult's lemmings... since most of them are closeted sex-o-philes, themselves, and pretend otherwise for acceptance by their peers. (Since they have no idea which of them are the same way, and which of them are actually the stick-in-the-mud prudes that they seem to be.) As for Congress -- same thing. Take Senator Larry "I am not gay" Craig (R-ID), for example. Whose congressional actions were among the most hateful and homophobic toward the gay community! How many of those lawmakers really wanted to give heavier enforcement to TV censorship -- and how many of them did so just for appearance's sake, to give their hypocritical constituents and their fellow hypocrites in Congress what they believed those folks and peers expected and wanted?
Most sensible people deplore the moronic censorship to which we are subjected by network TV (and even by most of the non-premium cable channels, even though the FCC's enforcement doesn't even apply to them -- go figure!)... and all-too-often hypocritically pretend otherwise. For the sake of the hundreds of millions of people who truly deplore this as much as I do -- I fervently hope that we all get to live long enough to see America OUTGROW this mindless hypocrisy and lunacy. And get to enjoy TV the way the far-more honest and sensible Europeans usually do.
As in, big whoop! Who gives a flying rat's patoot? I certainly don't.
Just for the record, I don't use any illegal substances (or even questionable ones, as steroids might be considered to be, outside of the sports world). So I have no axe to grind in writing this short opinion piece. The only time I made an exception to that was around 1972 (when pretty much everyone of college age was doing it) when I tried smoking a little pot. Once! And there was a very good reason for my not doing it a second time. It was in the evening, and as I drove home that night on a highway having a 45-mph speed limit, I knew I was driving that speed only because the speedometer said so. But my perception was that I was travelling only at about 25 mph or so. By what I regard common sense, I have opposed the legalization of pot for just that reason, and no other, ever since. If that experience affected my perception as it did, it probably would have the same effect on most other people, since I have a very normal physiology. What would happen if drivers didn't travel according to the speedometer, as I did, that night, but instead were to drive according to their perceptions? What if they drove at a perceived 65 mph? Their actual speed might well be more than 100 mph! And that could endanger them, and everyone else around them! So -- legalize pot? No. For that reason only. That reason is quite sufficient! It's not a freedom of choice issue, with pot. It's a public safety issue.
Steroids, though... that's a totally different breed of cat! There are many ways steroids can be used legally, and outside of the sports world, that's usually the case.
If an athlete can beef up by frequent use of such body-building techniques as weight-lifting and the exercise gyms, then what the blue blazes difference does it make if he or she adds steroids to his repertoire? If a baseball player, for example, didn't work out, he'd probably flunk out. So I think it's a safe bet that all successful athletes probably work out. And if the most successful of them also happened to use steroids, then fine. Let the less successful ones either follow suit, or keep on being mediocre. Their choice. Steroids are legal pharmaceuticals, and the imposition of artificial and pointless rules and strictures on athletes by those who have the capability to make such impositions is unfair and laughable. Whether it be in the world of professional sports, or in the Olympics. We just recently saw the case of an Olympic runner stripped of her medals -- and her relay team equally cheated out of their medals, over this idiotic extremism. That was hateful, cruel, stupid, and uncalled-for!
The newly-released Mitchell Report, which "exposes" more than 80 professional baseball players for steroid use, is just that mindless and ludicrous.
Do the fans care, one way or the other? THIS fan certainly doesn't! And any fans that do give a hoot about it, or whine about it, need to lighten up. It's NO big deal! And Mitchell can go fly a kite!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
If the Democrats don't re-take the White House in 2008, America could be in for a nightmare scenario not seen since 1865.
FREE states and SLAVE states. And an Underground Railroad system to assist the victims.
Doesn't that seem surreal and impossible? Unfortunately, it is not. Mark my words well -- the above scenario could become a grim and horrific reality as soon as mid-2009, and probably not much later than 2012, at best, if the Republicans were to retain their grip on the White House. (Which probably could only happen with the combination of crooked and rigged electronic voting machines, and apathetic sheeple who go along with it... as happened in Ohio, in 2004. That's fully documented in The Conyers Report.)
Here's how it would play out, almost surely, in a continued Republican administration.
ALL of the Republicans are Anti-Choice. You think Giuliani is an exception? Think again! He's said that he's perfectly willing to let the states decide when it comes to abortion rights. And he has promised that he will appoint ONLY "conservatives" to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Well -- it already may be too late. Thanks to G.W. Bush's having appointed two anti-egalitarian justices to it, that court may now already have an anti-personal-liberties majority for the first time in 80 years. You think those won't be "activist" judges? Just watch! Those so-called "constructionists" will interpret and skew the Constitution against vital rights just as surely as the fair-minded and compassionate majority of judges before them scoured the Constitution with an eye to defending our liberties. The only difference between the "activist" judges that the RRR Cult screeches and yowls about, and the the "constructionist" judges that are just one step lower than the angels in their eyes, is what they will do FOR us -- the people -- or TO us. One thing about appellate court judges is this -- they are ALL activists, and they ALL create Judicial Law.
Judicial Law, which stems from such courts' right to apply judicial review to legislation, is a key part of the Constitution's checks-and-balances system, and was reaffirmed over 200 years ago (in 1804, barely after America became a nation) in the landmark Marbury vs. Madison Decision. Thus, it is well-established law!
That function is what the RRR Cult's leaders snidely call "legislating from the bench." And they have their millions of lemmings -- who are mostly too doltish to understand the reality -- parroting that dishonest catch-phrase.
"Legislating from the bench" (legitimately, as described above) is FINE when it stands up for our rights and defends our personal liberties. In other words, it's fine when the majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are compassionate and fair-minded. Such majorities have been in place for longer than just about anyone alive today can remember. We have never known a Court having an ANTI-personal-liberties majority. But we probably have one now!
The best evidence that this disaster has already occurred is the Court's upholding the mindless law against so-called "partial-birth abortion." First off -- there's no such thing! The ID&E procedure that is so dishonestly described that way by the RRR's lying leaders is "Intact Dilation and Extraction." And it is a mid-SECOND-trimester procedure, almost always! It is done four or more months before birth normally would occur. And by that time in the pregnancy, the abortion usually isn't even elective. Women are 'WAY smarter than to wait 4-1/2 months to have an elective abortion! Thus, this newly-outlawed procedure is generally done as a medical necessity -- and is often the safest procedure to employ for her when the woman is that far along.
Who's dumber? The RRR Cultists... or the current majority of justices in the U.S. Supreme Court? Because the RRR's crafty leaders surely know these facts -- and those justices darned well should know them! One thing's for sure -- neither group of those educated people give a flying rat's patoot for teenage girls and women! This was a great example of where "legislating from the bench" went terribly WRONG. As it usually WILL. In the wrong hands!
Back to other cases of supposed "legislating from the bench." Here's what Judicial Review accomplished over the last 50+ years prior to the present makeup of the Court, when the majority was still in the right hands:
Brown vs. Board of Education -- 1954 -- Spelled the ultimate demise of segregation.
Loving vs. Virginia -- 1967 -- Struck down all the hateful laws against interracial marriage.
Roe vs. Wade -- 1973 -- Emancipated girls and women from being forced to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term. The greatest mass emancipation of Americans ever, and the first since Lincoln freed the slaves in 1865.
Lawrence vs. Texas -- 2003 -- Kicked the government OUT of the bedrooms of the American people.
There are many more, but those are some KEY ones. And with today's composition of the Court, every single one of those probably would have gone the wrong way!
Okay. WHY do we need a Democrat to win the White House in 2008? Just this -- whoever is president, as of the 2009 inauguration, he or she will almost surely get to appoint at least one, and possibly two, Supreme Court justices. A Republican would irrevocably destroy the Court for as long as any of us alive today are likely to live, and this can lead America inexorably and irrevocably down the road to ultimate tyranny. But a Democratic President would have a chance to possibly restore the Court to its former egalitarian majority.
We just have this ONE shot at it! After that, between Diebold, Republican dishonesty, and a Supreme Court corrupted against personal liberties, we almost surely will never have another chance!
Finally, let's go back to the scenario at the start of this article, to see just what almost surely WILL transpire if Bush is replaced by another Republican.
The Supreme Court, in its present composition, is almost certain to repeal the earlier Roe vs. Wade decision, and then the states would again each be able to regulate or deny abortion. We already know that many state Republican-majority legislatures are poised to make it flat-out illegal. And many states still have their former anti-abortion laws still on the books, ready and waiting for the 1973 Court's mandate against them to be lifted.
At the moment that the Supreme Court destroys Roe vs. Wade, all of that will come into play. The USA will be comprised of a hodgepodge of FREE states and SLAVE states, all over again. In the latter, girls and women having UNwanted pregnancies will either be enslaved to unwanted full gestation, and the horrific economic and social defvastation that would wreak upon their furure plans and opportunities. Or they'd have to make their way to FREE states to obtain their abortions.
For teens and the economically-deprived women, this would be a huge burden. Insurmountable for most.
But for the fortunate thousands who could obtain round-trip passage, a newly-created (after the fall of Roe vs. Wade) and fully-legal Underground Railway would be the only recourse. It almost surely would be privately-run, and would function on the contributions of fair-minded and compassionate Pro-Choice people.
Would emancipation from that nightmare scenario ever come about again? EVER? Perhaps not!
That's why we MUST elect a Democrat to the Presidency in 2008!