Shareholders vs. Consumers : An Old Trick

The defenders of corporate greed and institutional usury attempt to split the loyalties of consumers and investors who, often enough are the same person, into two rival factions. After all the other ridiculous pseudo-philosophical arguments and historical revisionism miserably fail to support their objective, they then turn back to the old ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. This is effective because it uses a truth, an obvious truth, and by some ‘logical’ extension, abuses that same truth to defend a detestable status quo.

This is similar to the rationale that says “Corporations are people, too.” Well, duh. The intent is to deflect the problems of corporations as entities by saying that they are, somehow, just like regular people. It’s bullshit. We all know it’s bullshit, but taking the time to break the claim down and explain why it’s bullshit is nigh impossible on the fly. The shortest answer might be to say, “Corporations are people, yes. But like people who behave badly or have misguided or dangerous notions, they should be carefully monitored and regulated to make sure they don’t act on those impulses.”

The ‘Shareholder vs. Consumer” tactic is more effective than the ‘corporations are people’ tactic, because it pits the conflicting interests of the same individual against himself! However, in the following ‘observations’ I will explain, or try to, why this is a fallacy that derives from the roots of corporate financing and misperceptions of how the market works. If you really believe that higher consumer prices are good for the common investor, then read on.

Observations:

1. Let’s do the arithmetic. While there is no doubt that consumers may also be shareholders, does the dividend the average shareholder receive equal to or exceed the amount of money now spent at the gas pump, either before or after taxes? I have some small investments in petroleum and not only does my monthly output because of the increased prices for everything exceed my dividend, the percentage of return that I receive on my stock has also gone DOWN, in spite of the price per barrel skyrocketing. I received a better dividend when oil was $25 per barrel than I do when it is over $100.

2. The mega-wealthy shareholders who hold the most of the stock wouldn’t have to worry about gas prices anyhow, even if they didn’t own it. I don’t see why the majority of consumers should be required to feed their irrational greed for wealth they do NOT need. That the average American should have to fore go some small luxuries in order for someone else to earn a dividend is wrong. I won’t deny them a profit, but why s profit so holy that it allows all and any abuse in it’s attainment?

3. I don’t understand why any consumer should worry about the problems of investors. If a person has enough money to gamble in the stock market or lend to a wealthy speculator, then it follows that they must have also enough plenty over to pay all their bills, take a nice vacation, and eat out once in a while. Many Americans can’t manage that much these days and much of it is due to the rapid increases in gas prices and petroleum derivatives along the ripple effect those increases place upon our economy. If a person has enough left over to play the market then why should their wants take precedence over the needs of those who aren’t so fortunate?

4. I fail to grasp why corporations need investors at all. After all, isn’t it good business not run solely upon the ‘confidence’ of investors but rather upon sound business practice that turns the profits from real goods or services back into the company? For a company like Exxon-Mobil to have to ‘borrow’ money from others is ridiculous! Every other small businessperson buys his equipment, mows a few lawns, pays off his loans, and then turns some of the money into getting better or more equipment. His profits and reputation build with time without the need of complicated financial engineering schemes and political lobbying. A corporation exists solely to draw money from outside the company into the hands of those running the company so that they can PLAY WITH IT without taking any risk of their own. Their goal is NOT to put as much as they can into the company, but to take OUT as much as possible.

5. If the defenders of the status quo are truly concerned for shareholders, then maybe a discussion of the bloated and exorbitant CEO compensation packages should be addressed. Every CEO that takes millions in salary and options robs each and every shareholder of monies they are due. Sure. The CEOs deserve to get paid well, but how well? As an investor, I have already done he company a huge favor by risking my money, so why should I also have to coddle a CEO, especially when it’s costing me? I didn’t invest in Enron to help Ken Lay. I invest to help myself. The billions and billions of dollars taken from corporations by individuals who do not risk nearly as much as I do, percentage wise, is obscene and it robs the common shareholder of his portion of the take.

An investor might begin to realize that his investing perpetuates the system and actually causes the inflation that downgrades the real value of his own investment. As corporations, financial institutions, and those who manage them feed the continuing addiction to wealth and ‘success’, it is the consumer AND shareholder who takes the hit, along with employees in most cases, to ensure the corporate profits.

“The chief weapon of sea pirates, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was too late, how heartless and greedy they were.” (Kurt Vonnegut, 1922 - 2007)

Kol Tuv

Private Water, Public Problem

Troops Sick from KBR-supplied Water (AP)

Dozens of U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by the military and a contractor once owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, the Pentagon's internal watchdog said.

This is what happens when you ‘privatize’ anything. KBR privatized the water supply in Bolivia and ended up not only sickening the population they serviced but impoverished them as well through high fees and legally sanctioned restrictions on individual water collection. Corporations have no conscience. Not even for those who unknowingly and willingly risk their lives to fill the corporate coffers. Imagine what they’d do to workers! Oh wait, they already do.

Companies like KBR have been angling for a way to take over the water supply here in the US as they did in Bolivia. If you think the water bills are high now, just wait until it gets ‘privatized’ and YOU, the consumer who cannot live without the water, will have to pay for the bloated salaries and desired dividends of already filthy rich bastards just so you and your kids won't die of thirst. Then, of course, the cost of all food will inflate because the farmers have to pay those prices, too.

The problem with the military’s water supply was first noticed in 2004 and now, in 2008, the problem continues unabated. No one is being held accountable and the corporation is still getting paid! Is this a good example of privatization being better than government? No. However, this is typical of what happens when corporations run amok anywhere.

Fuck the corporation. And if you like them, then fuck you, too. If a corporation takes over anything, be prepared for a colossal ass-raping of the public.

Visit this link for more information : Water Privatization Overview.

Privatization is fine when it comes to automobiles, cosmetic products, and televisions. However, for the necessities of life, which are RIGHTS and not mere luxuries or conveniences, rigid government control and oversight are necessary. Local municipalities in the US have done an awesome job keeping our water safe and affordable for both residents and businesses. There is NO reason to change anything.

“It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success.” (John Steinbeck, Cannery Row)

Kol Tuv

An Atheist's Creed

I believe in time, matter, and energy, which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind, the only tools we have; they are the product of natural forces in a majestic but impersonal universe, grander and richer than we can imagine, a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt. I do not seek out reassurances, but embrace the question, and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality. We have but one life, brief and full of struggle, leavened with love and community, learning and exploration, beauty and the creation of new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me, and an earth that will abide without me.

(I did not write this piece, but how I wish I had! It’s brilliant and to the point! I would likely have ruined it with florid and verbose verbiage.)

Kol Tuv

Cheating Spouses & Stupid Americans : 9-11

“The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” (H. L. Mencken, 1880 - 1956)

Americans are dumb asses. On one hand, we assume that Moslem peoples are ignorant and backward yet, at the same time, we give them credit for pulling off the most original, timely, and coordinated attack on modern America. You know, for the first few minutes after 9-11, I believed it, too. After all, Arabs are known for acts of such terrorism. They make the perfect scapegoats. They speak a different language, come from a different culture, and have different color skin. For most backward, knuckle-dragging, illiterate, racist white-American buffoons, Arabs, blacks, Jews, and anyone who can read is pretty much guilty of whatever can be attributed to them, lack of evidence or reason notwithstanding. I learned from 9-11 that my fellow American is a dumb shit.

AS I watched the continuous and repetitive coverage on CNN, FOX, NBC, and the various other media outlets I came to notice something rather odd. Initial interviews with persons who escaped from the buildings, in which witnesses clearly suggested that there were multiple explosions and detonations in the lower parts of the WTC buildings, ended up scrubbed from subsequent broadcasts as the day went on, until they were no longer part of the overall story. The BBC pulled the same wash-job, though it took them a few days longer to get in line with the cover-up.

THAT piqued my interest right away. It is known that in any conspiracy to control information, the first thing necessary is to scrub out any data or testimony that refutes the official version or events and then to attack or discredit the messengers of dissent.

For example:

I am planning a night out with a girl friend and I don't want my wife to fine out. In order to cover my ass, I enlist the help of my buddies. They are to say, if asked, that the bunch of us were playing cards at so-and-so's house until whenever and that I was there the whole night. I tell the wife that the place were are playing is some friend of a friend and that all I know is that it is somewhere at least 20 miles away. (This is, by the way, a classic conspiracy in motion. Remain vague enough in few details to stay flexible for later on.)

Problem is that life isn't limited to those involved in the conspiracy. Along the way to pick up the mistress, there are any number of things that can happen and I, being somewhat astute, have come up with some backup explanations or obfuscations should something not go exactly as planned. I can't control the all the information yet, since I don't know yet what information might be added to the story at this point.(This is also a basic part of any well-laid out conspiracy.)

Well, sure enough, something goes wrong with the plan. For example, I am stopping for gas or some soda and the mistress is sitting next to me in the car when one of my wife's co-workers, whom I do not notice, spots us together at a Quickie Mart. Subsequently, the next morning she mentions running into me at a convenience store the night before, at some distance from where I said I would be playing cards with the guys. Although she makes no mention of the woman, perhaps to be polite or non-nosy, my wife's suspicions are already aroused and she is planning to ask me a few questions later on.

Sue, enough my wife confronts me with eyewitness testimony that contradicts my version of events. How does a good conspirator handle it? First of all, I ask her to call my buddies and see if I was lying. If they are in synch, they will of course say “yes”. The problem occurs when she asks more detailed questions concerning what game as played, when it ended, and who won. She may start to receive conflicting reports as to when the game started, ended or how long I was there. She might even all their wives and girlfriends to confirm or deny the alleged course of events. My wife does not confront me with the conflicting information but rather with her co-worker’s eyewitness report of my being in said place at said time and NOT at card game when I said I would be there. Either way, there is a problem and now I have to scramble to fix it.

The best way to do that is to confuse the wife with mind games to plant the seed for denial and create the plausible impossibility of your being anywhere other than at a card game with Mike, Bob, and Hussein. There is more information than for what I planned and now I have to control or debunk the new testimony. Things like:

1) Is she sure it was me? After all, I don’t know the coworker that well and she could have easily mistaken someone else for me. (Maybe the coworker is sane but simply mistaken about who she saw.)

2) What time was that? Impossible. I can’t be two places at once. (True statements help. It IS in fact physically impossible to be two places at once. You have stated a fact, although it has no bearing on where you were, it is helpful. Maybe the coworker was also mistaken about when she saw me, meaning that she could not have seen me at all.)

3) Are you sure this coworker isn’t just saying that to mess with you? Does she have something against you? What kind of person would torture their coworker and fellow female with outlandish stories of husbands and mistresses? You need to watch out for people like her. She’s obviously a nut. (Now that you’ve planted some doubt to time and place, you must disparage the witness, who might persist in her claims, as a ‘loose cannon’.)

4) Whom do you believe? Me or some loonie and jealous coworker? She just wants to cause trouble in our marriage for some reason. I am absolutely and totally insulted by your lack of trust! Isn’t that hat our marriage is based upon? Who are you going to believe? Some ½ stranger who might hate you? There is no reason to ask anymore questions about that night.

5) I am not going to discuss it any more. You’re becoming as crazy and paranoid as that psycho who claims she spotted me with some ‘mystery’ woman who, by the way, doesn’t exist. If you don’t trust me, then that’s your problem. (Make the wife think she is unstable or unreliable for not trusting and asking questions.)

6) Hope the whole thing goes away and that your wife doesn’t persist in seeking any more truth.

7) Repeat process as necessary and enlist at least one good friend to defend your ‘honor’. (Turn yourself into the victim here.)

So, too, with the 9-11 cover-up. The story starts with a plausible tale of angry Moslems, threats against America, and smuggled box cutters and ends up with so many unanswered questions and incongruencies to the government story that the classical obfuscations became necessary, and on a grander scale than ever before. The 9-11 ‘Truthers’ are painted as loonies, but they are just like our suspicious wife who remains persistent in her doubts as to her husband’s ‘official’ tale of events.

As to the official storytellers of 9-11, they have acted just like our cheating husband in every way and then some. If you believe their version of events without question, you’re a damned fool and deserve to be cheated on.

SL

'Whims of Providence'? : 9-11 Excuses

I remain one of the many outspoken critics of the government’s 9-11 account. This ‘note’ was a response that I received via e mail some weeks ago regarding this apparent skepticism and my unashamed wearing of tin foil undergarments. I will not to republish the author’s ‘liberal’ use of pejorative or invective and will instead stick to the main gist of the comment.

Re: They (9-11Truthers) appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they had they'd know that minutely planned operations--let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency--screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and other whims of Providence.

You know, this statement is certainly true enough. In any job, it is possible for unforeseen problems or random mistakes to screw things up beyond belief. That orders are not properly given or followed, or that some piece of important equipment fails at the worst possible time is a common occurrence in any workplace. That a sudden emergency might, due to the sheer shock of the event, incite panic in those trained to handle the crisis is also quite possible. That man and machine would unintentionally collude to fail is an everyday thing. I will grant them that much.

Just how much irresponsibility, however, are we going to chalk up to these ‘whims of providence’? A ‘providential’ screw up of this kind would consist of one of the four hijacked planes getting through to strike its intended target, or maybe even if two were able to do so, should it be that all those highly skilled and trained Air Force radar operators were having a really, really bad day at the office. Then again, maybe those highly skilled and decorated professionals with top-level security clearances and fancy strips of ribbon are in reality complete fucking morons and nothing more than Keystone Cops in military drag. Who knows.

No matter how shocked or surprised the military was on that terrible day, ALL FOUR commercial airliners planes went virtually untracked or unstopped. To make matters worse, even after two of them had already successfully struck their targets and it was known then for certain an attack was underway, yet another airliner was permitted to crash into the most secure and heavily fortified facility in the western hemisphere! Considering the amount of ‘providence’ that had to occur that day, one has to wonder whether or not there was some deliberate lack of effort on the part of NORAD and the FAA in their abject failure stop any of these flights.

It is interesting, though not entirely surprising, that these mostly conservative ‘debunkers’ of alternate theories of 911 find it necessary now to BLAME OUR MILITARY for malfeasance while, at the same time beating the drums for war and begging America to ‘support our troops’. They also seem confident that we can ‘win’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while fighting terrorism everywhere around the globe. Frankly, if the above “debunker’s” statement regarding ‘military history’ and the ‘whims of providence’ are true, then our military complex of men and machine is so hopelessly inept in the face of such odds that there is no way we could ever achieve victory! We are doomed.

I am not a fan of the military establishment or the corporate structure that feeds off it, but I reject outright any backhanded insult to their service. Soldiers are common citizens like you and I, trained to do their jobs efficiently and effectively, just as police officers and firefighters are, and they receive the sort of extensive training that enables them to respond quickly to both national and local threats to our security. They are, as part of that training, inculcated with a military discipline that requires them NOT to make decisions on their own, but to follow procedure wherever possible and to strictly follow the orders of their superiors. That somehow the entire unit watching the skies over America sat back, based on their own thinking, and did nothing, is an insult to their service. A captain, colonel, or lieutenant is never left to make that kind of decision on his or her own. A superior is must be consulted to advise on what measures to take, if any.

Allowing one hijacked airliner to crash into the most famous skyscraper in the world is, at best, a horrible error in judgment or timing on the part of an officer or maybe a group of officers on duty at the time. Two planes hitting the target is just plain malfeasance. For FOUR PLANES to have been simultaneously airborne and to have three of them, at different times, reach highly likely and visible targets is something that could have occurred only where a direct ORDER was given by Air Force command or the Pentagon to stand down.

The official explanations of 9-11 are a joke from top to bottom. Stop making excuses for the government.

SL

Bill of NON-Rights (Rebuttal)

Some lame-brain conservative idiot posted these 'non-rights' on another message board. There were a few others besides those I've listed and rebutted here, but I seem to have misplaced the file somewhere. Although these 'non-rights' might seem obvious to many, they are actually, upon closer inspection, fairly insidious attempts at destroying some very important protections currently in the law.

(ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.)

Whoever said that this was an inalienable right in the first place? Talk about stretching a nothing to look like a something! This is typical Republican shit. No one has ever suggested these luxuries be paid by taxpayers, although the politicians themselves appear to receive many such luxuries at taxpayer expense. That a politician derides the idea of anyone getting something for nothing is laughable. No one does less than a politician does and gets so much in return.

What exactly does “other form of wealth” mean? He is not very specific. Does he mean education, health care, savings accounts, stock portfolios, real estate, or employment opportunities? How does he manage to lump those in with big screen TVs and cars? At least he could explain his idea of ‘wealth’ a bit clearer. We all know that wealth is not about things we have but opportunities that provide long-term security and growth. That the author should harp on small-time material possessions is just plain fear mongering. Besides, wouldn’t making sure that everyone had a big screen TV be really good for the big screen TV makers?

(ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.)

What he really means to say is that he has the right to offend you in any way he sees fit. He wants to wear a swastika in a synagogue or shout ‘nigger’ in downtown Harlem and expect no one to get upset about it. This is typical of the racist majority who acts the victim in order to shift blame away from his own divisive and infantile behaviors. He does not realize the effects of ‘mere’ words, or how ideas can shape society’s attitudes and overall demeanor. That he fails, perhaps deliberately, to grasp this simple concept is not surprising. It means he can be the childish, raving asshole he always wanted to be without consequence.

He is correct in one matter. The world is chock full of idiots and, if he takes a good look at his immediate surroundings, one idiot in particular should stand out.

(ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.)

This is probably the worst NON right of all. The author posts what appears comman sense and obvious but really intends it as something dark and sinister. What he truly envisions is an economic and legal culture where one can make any product one wishes, no matter how awful or dangerous, and have no liability whatsoever should someone be injured by its use. He wants a world where ‘buyer beware’ is the only rule, whether it be apples, automobiles, or children’s cold medication. No law suits, no government oversight, no product testing, and no corporate liability or accountability. They assume the ‘market’ will correct the problem on its own, but care little about those who become ill, are impoverished, or die in the process. The ‘market’ corrects nothing on its own.

(ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes….)

This right-wing asshole asserts that “Americans are the most charitable people to be found” yet, simultaneously he decries the notion of making this ‘charitable’ behavior part of our national policy. Amazing ‘logic’ he employs there. What gives? If we are charitable as he claims then why the opposition to social programs that HELP others? I don’t get it. One should not feel ‘forced’ or put out when performing an act that one would, or a least claims would, perform quite willingly.

As we are a nation that frowns upon negative behaviors and makes it part of the law to dissuade fellow citizens from engaging in such acts, why not, conversely, encourage good acts through the law? If we are ‘charitable’ people then we should encourage more charity! I cannot think of a better medium than government to promote such a noble public cause.

(ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.)

This idiot thinks that because he has some ‘philosophical’ objection to a program, therefore the rest of us shouldn’t have it. This is the basic reasoning behind all conservative ideals. He has no clue how national health care would or wouldn’t turn out in America because he really doesn’t care how it would turn out anywhere in the world. That’s not the real issue here. He just doesn’t like the idea and, by golly, we ain’t gonna have it! This in spite of the fact that the right-wing douchebag is himself a government employee receiving public, taxpayer-funded health care as part of his salary package. He loves having taxpayer funded medical care for himself and his family, but when it comes to you and I, suddenly the system he benefits from would become a horrific national nightmare.

Hypocrites abound.

SL

Good Cop, Bad Cop

If invited to a social gathering and upon arrival I should discover there is a police officer present, I leave. I do not ever socialize with cops. I do not engage in illicit or illegal activities, but cops are paid snitches that spy on everyone except their own. Never trust that a police officer will casually overlook that which he is trained to spot or to forgive his own ingrained sense of suspicion. That I should find fault with anyone as cynical as myself in this regard seems duplicitous, but as my attitude does not really influence other people’s lives nor do I possess the power of state authority to act upon those impulses, my skepticism is of little real consequence.

Now, you may think that I am being overly harsh and general. Maybe you’re right. Yet, consider this for a moment. When was the last time you heard of an active-duty police officer speaking out publicly against the conduct of another police officer? This is the only profession where one employee cannot even with good cause speak out against the malfeasance of fellow employee or service provider without jeopardizing his own career status. If I call a plumber and ask which plumbers NOT to use, he or she will likely tell me who is crooked and who is not. There is no ‘thin blue line’ in the plumbing profession that protects the bad ones. So, why do we allow this for cops?

I know there are good, honest people that work in law enforcement. However, when those ‘good’ people see their fellow officers break the law or violate the civil rights of citizens, where is their outrage? What keeps them silent and ineffectual? If they are sworn to ‘serve and protect’ the community, does that not also include protecting it from other police officers gone awry? Maybe they forget, amidst the tumult of doing their jobs, paying their bills, upholding their own egos, and trying to protect each other that they must, while being in the public employ, do what is right and not what is merely safe for their own careers.

As a result, the professional courtesy that police officers, prosecutors, and judges extend to each other violates the bounds of community trust or benefit and most often results in the violation of civil rights and liberties of the common citizen. Sometimes, it means that someone dies in the name of the law and the law doesn’t hold itself accountable. It is time for the ‘good’ cops out there step up and go after their own rogue brothers in uniform. We cannot be expected to trust law enforcement if they cannot or will not police their own.

I am all in favor of legislation that would punish police officers (prosecutors and judges, too) with double or triple the penalties meted out to common citizens when caught breaking those laws they are entrusted, by oath, to enforce upon society. I’m sick and tired of reading about cops who run numbers, deal drugs, use drugs, shoplift, beat suspects, or whore out their own cocaine addicted wives and still end up with no jail time and take their full pensions upon ‘retirement’.

Biology Mine

Though unknown horizons beckon desired sanctuary
And divergent pathways draw me further away from home
A subconscious history awakens inner voices
Father and mother calling out from within
Their perverse biology forever mine to bear
Racing to discover elsewhere
Beginnings that never left me

SL

Silent Salvation

Let the stillness of my own voice be respite enough
For uneasy pause do words turn to force and banality
Tear out this wagging, bantering rogue of a tongue
Should it beckon you not in meaningful earnest
That my indolent insecurities
Not rape your psyche with idle chatter
To which device you may choose matters not
Shut me up and save us both!

SL

Please Leash Your Conservative

It has been stated, concerning many things, “Ignorance is the source of irrational Fear.” A man possessed by irrational and ignorance-based motivations, typically conservative by his nature and rejecting change out of some self-centered principle, becomes like the ill-mannered dog that howls at the vacuum cleaner simply because it makes a noise the he or she doesn’t like. The dog does not realize the ultimate purpose or benefit of the ‘evil’ machine or that it is, barring the accidental insertion of the errant tail or chew toy, a relatively harmless tool producing a loud but equally harmless tumult. The canine perceives itself under immanent attack from the noisy thing being pushed around the living room, and must bark in order to secure his own survival. This, in spite of the fact that its loving human companion, who it loyally trusts and loves, operates that very same diabolical thing of doggy destruction it fears most. It might take years of rigorous training to cure the dog from this behavior.

Similarly, the politically and socially conservative mongrel incessantly yelps out a fear-laden warning, crying out his mantra of ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘small government’ at any attempt that a society makes to help those in dire straits, be it of their own doing or as a result of being victimized by forces, natural or mega-corporate. He does not see the person crushed by natural disaster, poverty, war, greed, or physical or emotional illness as a victim, but as a major contributor to his or her own demise through lack of foresight or indolence. This dog thinks himself as the real victim, mercilessly hunted by those who threaten his very survival by showing the unmitigated gall to expect him to offer help others of his own breed. Somehow, to this conservative-type canine-like creature, the humming sounds and undertones of other organisms organizing through the power of government to assist fellow citizens in establishing a better sense of well-being and security is an anathema to his biological functioning. Like the dog who cannot share a food dish without snarling, he cannot feel safe or happy in a world where he is asked to relinquish one inch of ‘his’ territory or realm for the sake of another. This ill-tempered and paranoid beast imagines itself to be the true ‘victim’.

(In shelters, those types of dogs are usually put down, albeit humanely.)

The conservative position on most issues is symptomatic of this territorial ‘dog’ syndrome. They inject into the approach, diagnosis, and solution to social ills and their root causes nothing more than their own personal likes and dislikes. The sole concern is only insofar as what they fear it will cost them should we, heaven forbid, actually begin to treat social problems as diseases to be treated rather than as a crimes to be punished or markets to be exploited. In the fervor to maintain ‘principle’, as the old dog that adamantly refuses to learn even one new trick, the conservative fails to see that his justifications for such ‘principled’ stands cost taxpayers much more than would the clinical approach. He also denies that such a program could possible ever affect him or his loved ones for the better. Don’t ever bother arguing the point either, since he can’t hear you over the din of his own incessant barking.

There is also no compromising with such a creature. We cannot say to this dog "Hey, Buddy. I won't be giving him ALL of your food and not all the time. Just a little now and then is enough." Dogs cannot add or subtract on that level. This is why conservative ‘principles’ always entail all-or-nothing views with little room for maneuvering. Even should you explain that sharing allows him to partake of the system if it ever becomes necessary, should he not attack you outright, he will close off his ears and attentions before sulking off to lick his ‘wounds’. The fight-or-flight threat level of fear they manifest is wholly irrational and that fear, though a biologically fundamental function in all humans, could be brought under some rational control if other higher thinking and functioning human beings were doing the dog training.

The greatest myth that our conservative canine companion suffers from is that it believes that what it eats or possesses was made possible by its efforts alone. It thinks the food in that dish is either all the food there is to be had or, that his sharing of he dish means that he would be losing ‘his’ coveted dish altogether. This dog doesn’t realize that it is the careful planning and preparation of rational humans that provides it with a meal and warm shelter. It has no idea that the compassionate and caring human gives freely of his time, money, and ease to keep it safe and happy. It has no idea that sharing is what brought about its ‘success’ and he need not be fearful should that sharing seek out more ‘success’ in other venues.

It would not matter were one to spend a little or a lot of money on social programs like public education or national health care. Size is a meaningless measure. To the anxiety-driven conservative hound, should even a leashed and docile miniature breed of much lesser stature, that poses no threat at all, pass by ‘his’ yard, the much bigger and aggressive pooch will be pressed against the fence, frothing at the mouth with violent rage. Those kinds of canines cannot distinguish big from small, in the same way they can never seem to tell costly from truly efficient or productive.

Well, it's about time to vacuum the house.

Perfect Sense? LOL

Talmud : In Defense Of

Every so often, in one of the many chatrooms or message boards, the anti-Semites post various controversial passages from the Talmud in order to foster anti-Semitism in others. One would assume that anyone, in these modern times, who knows at least few Jewish people here and there, would think that these quotes are a complete fabrication of a hatred-driven delusional mind. Much like the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and other hatred-inspired anti-Jewish propaganda, these passages are likely considered by most to be outright lies. However, they’d be wrong; at least most of the time.

The majority of these oft quoted passages, carefully culled for their provocative value, are absolutely true in that the Talmud does, in fact, say exactly (well, almost) what it appears to say. The Talmud, a vast and varied body of Jewish knowledge, does at times offer to its readership some very weird and disturbing ideas. Nonetheless, these Talmudic dictums, be they logical, mysterious, practical, or just plain crazy have to be understood within the context and circumstance under which they were conceived. This is not to excuse the import of such statements or rationalize them, rather that we should understand how these ideas developed and what role they played, or didn’t play, in shaping Judaism and the Jewish world outlook.

In assessing these passages, one has to remember that the language of the Talmud is primarily Aramaic, the language of the Persian Empire and therefore, was the spoken language of the Jews under Persian rule and demand. Talmud Aramaic is written utilizing Hebrew characters and is mixed with a great deal of ancient and Biblical Hebrew as well. Even some accepted translations of Talmud, no matter how accurate, become mistranslations when viewed in a narrow context. As is common with any foreign language, especially those of ancient times, the nuances of Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew, which developed and operated from within specific historical and cultural contexts, are lost to the reader whose sole venue for reading the Talmud comes from a simplified and historically distant English translation. The ‘Soncino’ translation, though indeed quite scholarly, still requires some tweaking on the part of the reader, once again requiring the infusion of context and ‘religious’ nuance to understand Talmud clearly.

One should, while reading these passages, also realize that the vast majority of modern age Jews today do NOT read or study the Talmud, let alone adhere faithfully to its rulings and philosophy. Talmud study, at least in any appreciable depth, is the pretty much exclusively the realm of the rabbinical/yeshiva academies and perhaps among a few secular academic scholars here and there. The tenor and tone of the Talmud, though it continues to provide a basis for much of Jewish religious practice, is often not the last word on Jewish belief. In the centuries since those rabbinic discussions occurred and their subsequent compilation into a single legal/religious tome, much has transpired to mitigate much of the nationalistic and paternalistic fervor of ancient Israelite thinking. Living, as we have, as an oft-persecuted and fearful minority, whilst surviving and thriving among sometimes very hostile neighbors, has forced Jews to be more understanding of racism and bigotry. This is why Jews have been, since the Enlightenment, at the forefront of egalitarian and socially conscious movements. Even the most devout of religious Jewish authorities vehemently forbid Jews from engaging in many of the behaviors spoken of in the Talmudic Era.

It is equally important to understand that the Talmud is not exclusively a legal tome or law book, rather a comprehensive record of the rabbinical debates and personal insights that sometimes would lead to a definitive legal decision or merely Biblical exegesis. The anti-Semite pulling quotes from the Talmud perhaps does not realize that the particular statement may be one of a single rabbi, whose minority opinion, upon closer reflection from his colleagues, becomes completely and utterly dismissed as sheer nonsense. As is often the case, these passages merely express the personal observations of a single authority. The reason that the Talmud includes these extraneous and often ridiculous notions is to teach us, reading these debates centuries later, the process by which the legal ends are determined. It is an almost exclusively Jewish method of using absurd arguments en route to proving a crucial point of law. The anti-Semite cherry-picking these statements does not know where in the debate process the passage occurs and therefore makes the mistake of thinking it is at the end, rather than somewhere in an obscure, rejected, and almost forgotten middle.

Now, one might ask at this point, why it is that the compilers of the Talmud chose to include these controversial and crazy ideas, knowing that the Gentiles would eventually have a copy and then, as we have seen so often, misunderstand the import and context? The answer is simple. Those who had to compile the Talmud, which is vast in its scope and coverage, due to time and persecution, had eroded much of the memory of it. The Talmud, referred to as the ‘Oral Law’, was not written down until centuries later and, as history shows us, these type of things are subject to wanton forgetfulness. The compilers, Rav Inu and Rav Ashi, put in every bit if whatever it was they could remember or gather from other sources, be it good, bad, or indifferent. Every bit of information needed preservation if for no other reason than for posterity.

Another very important point is to understand the various layers of Jewish thinking. Talmudic Judaism is quite legalistic. It concerns itself primarily with what is, according to Biblical tradition, the strictly legal guidelines regarding human behavior. It does NOT condone or advocate those seemingly horrible or cruel behaviors that it considers as technically ‘legal’, but simply states that, according to the religious law as written, these acts are not punishable by human courts. Rabbinical responsa penned since the Talmud era firmly and vehemently forbid, and for many reasons, many of the behaviors and attitudes that prevailed during Talmudic times. Actions that would be considered within the ‘letter of the law’ now became proscribed as violating the ‘spirit’ of Jewish practice.

This legalism also has three distinct and often contradicting positions to maintain. First, there is the Biblical law, which forms the basis for all Jewish law and, being of primary concern, must be shielded from any hint of violation. The rabbinical law stands as an extension of the Biblical Canon in that it provides for an enforced buffer zone, much like a behavioral ‘speed limit’, setting reasonable boundaries intended to keep the Jew one or two additional steps away from committing an infraction of Biblical magnitude. These laws sometime also apply to positive commands as well and serve to reinforce Biblical precepts. The Talmud also sorts out some of the ambiguities in Biblical language and law. Yet another layer regards civil law and ethics, which surprising at it may be to some, makes up a substantial portion of the Talmud. The rabbis had many social, economic, and political issues to address and although they fed upon both the Torah and the wisdom of their predecessors, many of their decisions were derived from the here and now, having based their legal on exploitable loopholes in the Talmudic law. It was flexible enough in its scope to allow for looser ‘interpretation’. Even when viewed from our modern perspective, this latter approach, favoring the benefit of the believer over the strict religious dogma, seems very a practical and enlightened way of thinking, much unlike other widely held religious doctrines.

There are times that the highly technical religious viewpoint has conflicted with political concerns. The well known Talmudic dictum of “Dina d’Malchusa Dina”, though never quoted by Jew-haters, provides an underlying principle of Jewish law in the Diaspora, showing that Jews are obligated to recognize and obey the laws of their host countries with the same tenacity and acceptance as they do their own religious teachings. There are many different circumstances and justifications surrounding this particular clause, but that differentiation between legality and social necessity is a common theme in Jewish Law. The Talmud, which was compiled under the dominion of foreign rule, provides some guidelines for maintaining that precarious balance between foreign secular rule and insular religious doctrine. Our national survival from within and our biological survival in the face of outside hostilities depend upon this peculiar ability to satisfy both obligations simultaneously.

Do not consider my defense as exhaustive or even effective. At best, and I am extremely hopeful in saying this, there will come a better understanding of Talmud, how it works, and what it offers in terms of wisdom, insight, insanity, irony, and humor. I remain the strongest and most vocal critic of Talmudic doctrine, rabbinic law, and their philosophy. Yet, even in my apparent heresy, I find no need to misrepresent or lie about that which I have chosen to reject. Telling the truth, the whole truth, is quite enough to provoke anger, thought, and even a profound insight or two.

The Talmud is not without its value. Anti-Semites, in their hurried rushing to quick judgment, are missing out on a golden opportunity to garner some bits of ancient wisdom and also learn something of Jewish history and the Jewish people.

Knowing your enemy can be quite a learning experience.

Nu?

War on God? : Babbling Builders of Yore

(Genesis 11:1 - 9)

א ויהי כל-הארץ, שפה אחת, ודברים, אחדים

ב ויהי, בנוסעם מקדם; וימצאו בקעה בארץ שנער, ויישבו שם

ג ויאמרו איש אל-ריעהו, הבה נלבנה לבינים, ונשרפה, לשריפה; ותהי להם הלבינה, לאבן, והחמר, היה להם לחומר.
ד ויאמרו הבה נבנה-לנו עיר, ומגדל וראשו בשמיים, ונעשה-לנו, שם: פן-נפוץ, על-פני כל-הארץ

ה ויירד יהוה, לראות את-העיר ואת-המגדל, אשר בנו, בני האדם

ו ויאמר יהוה, הן עם אחד ושפה אחת לכולם, וזה, החילם לעשות; ועתה לא-ייבצר מהם, כול אשר יזמו לעשות

ז הבה, נרדה, ונבלה שם, שפתם--אשר לא ישמעו, איש שפת ריעהו

ח ויפץ יהוה אותם משם, על-פני כל-הארץ; ויחדלו, לבנות העיר

ט על-כן קרא שמה, בבל, כי-שם בלל יהוה, שפת כל-הארץ; ומשם הפיצם יהוה, על-פני כל-הארץ

Why is this story even necessary? If we removed it from the Torah, we might not miss it at all. In fact, it seems, much like the non-ending genealogies of hard to pronounce names, and wholly redundant. Yet, for the purpose of which the story becomes necessary, it fits right in with the aforementioned family trees. The tale of the Tower is not needed, in and of itself, but exists to fill in a ‘blank’. While reading thus far in the Torah, one wonders how multiple languages, human migration, and demographic diversity came to be. In the mind of the ordinary person, families stay close to families and, in those days, people stayed near the clan and rarely ventured very far from home. To anyone alive then, the idea of migrating away from your people was considered insane, so the Torah has to tell us that God 'forced' people to do the unthinkable and spread out far and wide across the globe. As we see with Cain, having to leave the family was a terrible curse!

Verse 11:1 tells us what humanity looked like immediately prior to the Tower and, at the same time, leads us to some more interesting questions. So far, despite the racial differences we are told existed between Noah’s children, they seemed to be, at least we imagine them to be, of one huge and very cooperative extended family, while speaking one common language among each other. There is no reason to assume otherwise and it makes perfect sense, should the Torah be correct, that one common means of verbal communication among these cousins was the norm. That everyone shares a bloodline, lives within the same community, and speaks a common language should come as no surprise. After all, they were grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the same man.

However, if we take allow ourselves a moment of respite from our Torah reading to take a quick glance at the world around us, we see something very confusing. Whether in ancient or modern times the various traders, merchants, mercenaries, ministers, refugees, and vacationers from distant lands, none of whom spoke the local language, began arriving within the boundaries of the fledgling human family. The clever child would immediately ask the obvious question, and the Torah anticipates that curiosity with the Tower story. It became necessary to explain to children (and I suppose some adults, too) how such varied linguistic diversity came to be if, in fact, the Torah, up to that juncture immediately prior to the Tower, was even remotely accurate. Thus, the telling of the tale of the Tower of Babel was needed to answer the obvious and keep the flow of the Torah narrative running smoothly.

Why did they build the Tower anyhow? The Torah says that the people were worried that they would become too spread out and wanted to establish the Tower as a beacon which people could see for many miles around, much like a lighthouse does for ships nearing the shoreline. There is nothing here to substantiate the Rabbis claims that these people were going to 'make war on God' and eventually climb the Tower to attack Heaven. I realize the Rabbis have to concoct that nonsense to try and make sense of the story, which is also nonsense, but they just make the whole problem even worse. From the plain Torah account, there appears nothing amiss or sinful in their motives for building a metropolis or a skyscraper within it. One has to wonder how, in light of the Tower story, this God allowed any cities to ever be established.

The Rabbis reasons for assuming a 'war on heaven' are two-fold. One, it provides a reason why God would be angry over this and two, it permits all kinds of other assumptions clearly not stated in Torah. We will deal here with only the first assertion. The obvious question becomes as to how exactly one wages war on an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent being. It's not as if one could launch a direct assault on something which is everywhere nor could one ever hope to hold the high ground or use the element of surprise to any particular advantage. Besides, what weapons would they have been using? If God is vulnerable to spears and swords, whereas God being equally present everywhere one turns, He would have to fear the blade at sea level just as He might at 5000 km above it!

Why build the Tower in the valley and not on a mountain top? If their purpose was, as the Rabbis suggested, to ‘wage war with God’, then wouldn’t it make more sense in any case to use existing geography to their tactical and practical advantage? I think it's pretty clear that the Rabbis were talking out of their asses, merely trying to justify the Tower story through the smoke and mirrors of allegory or parable, rather than dissecting the Torah account to root out the apparent flaws.

Rabbis say that humanity's sin here was in developing too much self-reliance and not maintaining enough faith in God. The 'war on God' was not a literal war in the physical sense, but a psychological war whose indirect effect would be to lessen one's dependency on God. The Rabbis assert that the people, by establishing themselves as a civilization, were rejecting faith. Apparently, only nomads and farmers are steadfast in faith and belief and God was worried that living in anything other than tents that reek of dried camel dung and human urine would incite humanity to rebel against Him. If real faith can only exist in nomadic agrarian societies, then modern Judaism is utterly screwed. In either case, the Tower tale makes no sense at all.

Who is God asking to help confuse languages? When He decides that "We" should be doing something about the Tower, who is asking? This is a similar problem to the verse in genesis where God says "Let US make man". So who is us? Now you may suggest that 'us' here is perhaps angels, but why doesn't it just say 'angels' and not leave us guessing? I have no answer for this one, and it appears to be yet another instance where polytheism is strongly implied in the Torah. This problem, however, is not integral to our story.

What is God's problem with peaceful human cooperation? It seemed that humanity was doing quite well; without wars or other societal problems that, under the best of circumstances, tend to fragment a society. This is, in part, how you know the story to be false. I cannot, myself, imagine all of humanity, no matter how few in number, working toward one purpose so efficiently as to scare the bejeezus out of the Almighty. One has to ask what exactly it was about their peaceful and focused mutual effort that ticked off the Lord. Not only that, but you’d think that all this happy cooperation would be a really good thing and not pose a threat to God. After all, just a few generations back, God flooded the planet and damn near wiped out humanity for NOT behaving peaceably with each other! So now, they are conducting themselves quite nicely and God gets pissed off at that, too! No wonder people stop believing in God; he is just plain impossible to please!

How exactly did God mess up their communication and to what extent? Rashi tells us that if one worker would ask for a brick the other would hand him a hammer and this thwarted any effort to continue building the tower. Yet, to have total societal confusion spring from this incident, it would require much more than just the mere bewilderment of artisans and laborers. For God's plan here to unfold as desired, both husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, etc. would also have to become linguistically estranged from one another. The result would be that no one, even those on the most intimate of terms, would be able to communicate! Total chaos, and one well beyond what the Torah suggests here, would have almost instantaneously ensued. Yet, somehow, the people did not disperse as individuals in random chaos, but remained, even while migrating away from Shinar, in their basic family units.

This problem is further accentuated by the fact that, as the Torah claims, they were of "few words", implying a language very much based upon symbols, signs, and other forms of non-verbal communication. If we are to believe what Rashi tells us, then even if their spoken language went awry, the basics of their communicative abilities still remained. This applies even more so to the artisans and laborers whose skills, once highly developed, required no direction at all, as they were able to continue their work without need for spoken language. If a mason needed a brick he could simply point with his finger to the brick and the laborer would know what to do. In any case, whatever the Torah (or Rashi) claims to have happened either would have had a much greater or significantly lesser effect than the Tower story seems to imply and does not answer any of the obvious questions.

The list goes on, but I have no more time at the present to donate to this subject. Comments and ideas are always welcome.

Kol Tuv

Burying the Goldfish : Funny!

Conversation w/a Capitalist Doofus

There is nothing more entertaining that a Republican, corporate-brainwashed windbag trying to discuss economics and sociology. The scary part is that this person is convinced that he or she is right. His comments are in parentheses.

(Re: The overtaxed and over worked employers are entitled to make a profit.)

Correct, but at what price to everyone else involved? How much more of worker’s rights, safety codes, and consumer protections are you willing to do without in order for the owners and shareholders to make even more return than they are already? Besides, if a company cannot remain competitive in the marketplace simply by producing and selling their product or service, then perhaps that is the fault of the people running the company and they should be out of business altogether. Financial engineering does not a healthy economy produce.

Bottom line? Capitalists are too busy defending the people who don’t need any help while preaching that no one should be helped anyhow. Does that make any sense at all?

(Re: In spite of how hard you try, we are not a socialist country yet.)

I’m working on it though, and there are millions of working class and educated Americans who don’t buy the corporate bullshit anymore either. As American wages and buying power decreases, more average folks are seeing the light. Unfortunately, those at the top continue to manipulate the news and the numbers to show otherwise. In spite of all your bragging about ‘Capitalism ending the Cold War’ and ‘Communism dead and gone’, the right wing still trots it out as the great econo-political bogeyman when needed.

(Re: The uneducated, entry level worker does not deserve the same wage as the business owner, or upper level manager.)

No one ever suggested that an entry level worker should receive the same compensation. You are flaunting your ignorance of a subject you should avoid. The ‘entry level worker’ excuse is overplayed. They are earning money for the company and providing needed labor. To degrade the entry-level position as if it is some sort of hazing ritual is disrespectful to your fellow American who very often now, has to take that job because his former corporate masters relocated his job to Indonesia.

(Re: The "free" healthcare, the "free" bridge card, housing assistance, SSI, & SSA checks....Where does that come from?)

Same place corporate welfare comes from. Same place the military comes from. Same place from which the roads get paved and the school are built. Same place from where every federal employee and politician gets free health care. Same place that pays for all the tax breaks and subsidies given to lumber companies, coal companies, etc.

You are not opposed to welfare. You merely demand that it to go to those to don’t actually need it.

(Re: There should be no free rides.)

That is a very heartless thing to say. You would begrudge a hungry family a meal or shelter because they didn’t ‘work’ for it. Why does everything with you Republicans have to come with ‘work’. All you want us to do is work, work, work, work. If you are mentally ill, that’s too bad. The rest of us normal people would like more vacation and don’t mind one bit if our money helps another human being. All human beings are deserving of compassion. Even you.

In the Republican mind, which follows the old Calvinist ideal of will-breaking and hard labor, nothing is bestowed without maximum effort or endeavor. It’s a bullshit cultist philosophy that should have died out with the Pilgrims, but still survive in the psyches of Capitalists world over. As long as you slave for their profit, you remain worthy of sustenance, otherwise you are a drag on the system and to be caste out and forgotten.

(Re: The generation, after generation, of soulless, beat down, individuals. Who have no drive, no motivation, are living proof that Welfare does not work.)

People are alive, fed, and sheltered? Then it’s working! Before FDR’s New Deal we had people starving in the streets in this country, most of them elderly. I don’t know what you think social programs are supposed to accomplish, but their goal is maintain the life and welfare of the citizens. You also need an honest history lesson and not rely on the white-washed, brainwashed bullshit you heard in elementary school and on talk radio.

The New Deal saved lives. People like you opposed it then and still do today.

(Re: Take out the emotions, and insert the facts and figures, the math doesn't work)

Spoken like a true bean-counter. Amazing how you can detach yourself so easily from human suffering so to be able to earn .08% more on one of your many investments. Facts and figures, you say? Is wealth that all there is to life? The facts and figures don’t add up either. Your beloved capitalism is KILLING this country from the inside out.

You also need a good lesson on empathy.

(Re: Less people working every year, less paying into the system, more drawing and draining on the system.)

The people not paying their fair share into the system are those who can afford off shore tax shelters and can lobby for loopholes in the tax code. The people draining the system are wealthy people who don’t need SSI and take it anyway. I know a fellow, richer than you can imagine. Guy went out and bought a $50,000 car and paid cash. Yet, when his wife needed a hip replacement and Medicare asked a co-pay of $600, he went berserk!

(Re: The poor 25 year olds, working today, will have nothing from our government. I wish everyone had a nice home, job, and a car. )

Those 25 year olds won’t have jobs either, because the 50-75 year olds are still racing to get richer and richer by pulling the rug out from under the American economy through outsourcing jobs and other forms of crafty financial engineering. Besides, why do you worry about anyone taking SSI?

(Re: The way to achieve that is through work and determination.)

Tell that to the slaves, sharecroppers, and serfs throughout history. And, if you had brains or any experience, you’d know that many other factors besides hard labor determine success. To be successful, one’s labor has to be rewarded. One also has to be healthy. One has to be respected and honored by those he labors on behalf of and by the society in which he lives. One also has to be working in or investing into an HONEST system, and not the cutthroat trading games that exist on Wall St.

Most of all, to be successful, one has to be LUCKY. If you are not in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances, it won’t happen no matter how hard you imagine yourself to be working. Luck is the mechanism by which most everything honest occurs because it involves no conscious manipulation on the part of opportunists.

(Re: Stay strong Mr. President, you didn't cause the Hurricane (Katrina), the heat wave we are experiencing, but I know you will be accused.)

Right. Bush didn’t cause it. No one said he did. The POTUS simply dropped the ball on preventative measures and the rescue effort. Sure the fire department didn’t set the blaze, they just stood by while it burned, blamed someone else, and then reneged on their promises to help. .

I have to wonder at this point what you think a president’s job should be.

(Re: Consider the source, the bitter, hate filled Democrats who never got behind their President.)

You mean just like the Republicans got behind Bill Clinton? LOL

Bush was never my president. He was never elected. Not once. You obviously are not a believer in individualism or liberty if, as you assume, one must stand behind a leader no matter what the circumstance. Your ‘my leader/country right or wrong’ attitude is quite disturbing.

Now, you may say that this person's arguments are simplistic and easily debunked, but that really is not the case. Arguments in support of Capitalism have never changed, but have, at certain times gained support from pseudo-philosophies and fancy advertising, neither of which say anything about the consequences of their favored ideals. This fellow had all the requisite talking points well rehearsed.

Repunzel's Dilemma

Does the princess truly await one royal
Or merely any escape from lofty prison?
Should but a plain commoner
Seek to rescue her
Would she still abide by prior decision?

Even should one of regal birth dare ascend
Upon braided locks now lowered aground
For after loving embrace
The problem they’ll eventually face
Is exactly just how both will get down!

Never Really Mine

Strangers dared to call me their own

And even boasted of my presence among them

Adorned in their clothing

Inundated with their culture

And faithfully

Did I imitate their mannerisms

Calling them family

But they were never really mine

I followed their religion

Bearing burdens of unique family bonds and piety

Speaking proudly their accomplishments

Their loving advice a holy word

But internally

Was I raging for something other

I couldn’t withstand anymore

Since they were never really mine

Subconscious desperations leading me astray

From the safety of their caring embraces

Taken to rebellion

Never knowing why

Not even knowing how

Their warm welcomes back into the fold

Now becoming searing wounds

Tears burning my skin

For they were never really mine

No longer could I endure

Living outside of my own context

A new circumstance with no definition

Only a hope

Wherein the eye that is mine

The face that shares my gazes

Lies somewhere beyond the confines

Of the places named home

Where they were never really mine

I go back to them for want of nothing else

Their dutiful forgiveness

Of my oddities and back-lashings sickens me

They cannot fathom

Living without knowing

Being without identity

Picking and choosing yourself is never enough

From among lives

That were never really mine

Rooting for Defeat? Hell Yes!

Am I rooting for defeat in Iraq? You bet! Losing a bad war isn’t such an awful thing. Leaving would save American lives and allow the Iraqis the chance to do it on their own without the constant threat of corporate-oil manipulation and intervention. We should juts cut our losses and be done with it. The problem is that our Chimp-in-Chief cannot nor will not ever admit error and, therefore, will never alter or dismantle his destructive and incredibly stupid ruination of the Middle East and, by way of war funding, the American economy.

I want to see the Americans leave Iraq immediately. This war remains an unprovoked, illegal escapade conjured by oil-hungry robber barons disguised as human beings. At some point, we the people have to say "Enough already!", and bring our brothers and sisters in uniform back home to their waiting families. This illegal invasions, looting, and systematic destruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq must end.

Only a complete boob would believe in "my country right or wrong" without pondering the merits of each national policy. Think about what kind of horrible atrocities that sort of feeble, blind nationalism permits i.e. illegal invasions of sovereign nations, the loss of civil liberties, rampant taxation to support favored industries and military build-up, torture, cronyism, corporate welfare, etc. These 'patriots' see a flag waving somewhere and suddenly every evil done its name become a morally righteous crusade, infallible and beyond any critique or question.

Sorry to say it, but my government and the corporate bastards that dictate our current national policy need to be taken down a few notches and face a hard reality. They are NOT America. They do not define what is American. They are nothing more than sycophantic abusers of ambiguous symbolisms and spout inane, meaningless jingoisms, while deceiving otherwise good, common people with platitudes and colorful banners.

I am a citizen of the world and if the place of my birth and my residence, be it Russia or the US, goes astray from what is decent and good, I speak up loudly. I don't give a shit about flags or national anthems. I care about people. Fuck the corporations and the bomb makers. They have enough blood money already.

Time to end it for good. But how?

Peace

Over-Reacting & Recovery

Over zealous prosecutions and overreaction to everything and anything that occurs is typical American behavior for any and all contacts with law enforcement or those who fall prey to public scorn or scrutiny. This era of zero-tolerance began with Republicans in the 1980s and has now reached its paranoid schizophrenic zenith under the ever-vigilant gaze of the Bush administration’s corporate lackeys and their badge-wielding protectors.

I have watched the government rhetoric and lingo change steadily over the last 25 years into something reminiscent of Soviet-era nomenclature. Everything becomes a ‘war’ on something, but really ends up being an attack on civil liberties in order to maintain the corporate status quo and eventually bleed the average American dry of money and the will to defend his own rights. Dissenters become ‘agitators’, protesters become ‘traitors’, and a man taking a leak become a ‘sex offender’, even though no sex was involved. Kids are expelled from schools for carrying nail clippers and sharing Midol, while airline passengers are strip searched and forbidden from carrying toothpaste on board.

We are the biggest nation of pussies, crybabies, and wimps on the planet. We are afraid of everything it seems. Everyday the ‘terror’ level are raised somewhere for something else. Meantime, the ones who instill the fear and profit from it turn out to be the very same people of whom we need to be wary. A Republican US Attorney soliciting sex with a five-year-old, and yet another law-and-order conservative getting caught looking for blow jobs in a rest stop men’s room.

I do not believe the Democrats innocent in this either. They are a bunch of complicit enablers who don’t know how to use power even when the majority of Americans DEMAND they do something, anything to protect us from the encroachment on our civil liberties. Bill Clinton represents the absolute worst of what the democratic Party had to offer in terms of his capitulation to the corporate establishment and the Republicans or the 1990s. Hillary Clinton will be no different, just a bit less charming, should she attain the Oval Office.

People who are emotionally secure do not live in fear, do not arm themselves for ‘inevitable’ attack, do not imagine enemies behind every bush, and treat their fellow citizens with compassion and offer the benefit of doubt whenever possible. The American trend for overreaction and overzealousness is a mental defect infecting every level of government, local, state, and federal. Their attitude leads them to justify tasering peaceful citizens, seizing assets without proper claim, and torturing those suspected of any and all offenses to even the 'spirit' of the state.

Individuals who behave in this manner are normally considered mentally ill and deemed as dangerous to both themselves and society. We isolate those individuals in order to protect society. What happens when a government goes paranoid schizophrenic? Who is going to institutionalize it? A government has never been known to stop itself from following the wrong course of action. How long before America seeks its emotional recovery?

Unfortunately, nations, much like individuals, must hit their 'bottom' before ever seeking remediation or therapy. I would like to believe that this nation, which regards itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy for the entire planet can see the light before the 'bottom', rushing up towards us becomes too close to avoid. Otherwise, it may be up to the people, through the upheaval and chaos of revolt, that bring the nation full circle and with very mixed results.

I guess we'll see.

Urination: Sex Offense?

A wise man once told me “Morality is something you do when no one else is looking.” Morality differs from ethics in that it has an intangible, personal, and non-causative motivation that disassociates it from the very behaviors it attempts to restrain. Morality is based in nothing more than “God said so”, or “just because” or, as is more likely the case, it becomes simply a matter of personal tastes being projected onto others. I have no objection to anyone having a moral basis for their own behaviors, but to project that intangible onto others is dangerous and misguided.

The inherent danger of morals are that, unless clearly defined, people will find the slope into control freakism very slippery and easy to navigate straight to the bottom. Something without a logical basis, not being reinforced by observable causes and effects, possesses no boundaries in terms of the insanity to which it may lead. The case of public nudity becoming a ‘sex offence’ is a good example of morality gone wrong.

A man stops to urinate along the side of the road or behind a dumpster. Certainly, it would be best if he found a restroom, but he didn’t, so we deal with what we observe. The poor bastard gets caught by a local gendarme and is cited for public nudity, even though the only public around was this man and the cop who saw him peeing. The man is then hauled before a judge and becomes a sex offender, even though there was no sex, no women, no children, or even animals present. The man was simply emptying his bladder in the same manner every one of us do at least three times or more daily.

Now, if the police officer wishes to cite this fellow for ‘public urination’ or littering, which I would agree he should do as we don’t want our streets to smell like cesspools, I would have no issue. However, the lawmakers, forever pandering to the senseless and vengeful moralists, have pushed for tougher penalties for any type of public nudity under the guise of ‘protecting children’. I would also agree that if our ‘public urinator’ was already a REAL sex offender that his behavior now should be treated more seriously.

Morality has made my penis a ‘wrong’ or ‘evil thing’ no matter what it is I am using it for or why I have it out. Morality, since it has no real rules to it, cannot distinguish between right or wrong and therefore anything goes and everything eventually becomes a ‘forbidden’, even under the most innocuous circumstances. People, whose behavior yesterday was perfectly acceptable, if not laudable become, by today’s ‘morality du jour’, enemies of society and virtual pariahs.

In America, we are masters of moralizing. We equate ‘right and wrong’ with ‘good and bad’, when the two have absolutely nothing in common.

For Karen

Only constant thoughts of our time together make the days away from you the least bit bearable. I still see your smiling, radiant face looking up at me in the sunlight and I am smitten again and yet again by your beauty, intelligence, and passion. There is something so simple and so serene between us that we dare resist only because we haven’t acclimated to the joy we thought, perhaps, would never come.

I can tell you that I love you, but that wouldn’t be nearly enough to express what I truly feel. Words, no matter how fancy or rhythmic, born from the heart of the cleverest lyricist remain wholly inadequate. Our touching, our kiss together, is everything that anything joyous could be. Your bluest eyes shine as you speak my innermost thoughts back to me. Never have I known this sort of emotion.

We are left lying together, entwined in each others love-tired bodies, and laughing at each other's stupid jokes told in that hazy, haphazard Sunday afternoon post love-making fatigue. The world is all but abandoned to its own designs, not having us to care one whit was transpires beyond the confines of our love.

I love you.

S

If Elected : Vote Shlomo!

If elected, I would endeavor to implement the following changes to our society within the first three months of my administration:

1)Legalize marijuana, prostitution, and assisted suicide (If we are serious about the concept of individual freedom, then let's get serious about it!)

2) Universal Health Care (We can't shout "united we stand" with any sense of pride if we aren't willing to care for one another.)

3) Universal Education K-PhD (We always talk-talk-talk about the importance of education for the welfare of our economy and nation, but we treat students like second class citizens and force them to spend more time working than studying.)

4) Ecologically Based National Mass Transit System

5) Increase in Hemp production for paper and bio-fuel (No more special deals for the lumber and paper industry.)

6) The President will be permitted one intern-administered blow-job for each fiscal year providing the the budget is balanced for said year. Should there be a revenue surplus for any year, the President will then be permitted to have the intern stroke his balls as well. (Should the President be a female, then it means that I wasn't elected.)

7) There will be no bombs dropped on anyone who doesn't drop one on us first. No preemptive wars or policing of peoples whose nation's name most of us cannot even spell. If we don't like a nation's policies, we can just as easily ruin their lives by dropping Britney Spears albums on them.

Shlomo in '08!

Dear Hater

What I would give for hatred pure
Such a thing would surely give me pause
If only your sense of right and wrong be truly sure
In critiquing all my many flaws

But alas you’re just the sort of fellow
Whose merely hates which he can’t understand
Could anyone, white, black, red, or yellow
Ever fulfill your harsh demands?

So hate me as you do already
From that much I expect you won’t relent
Bearing rancor, firm and steady
Not for me as me, but for what I, to you, must represent

Come now, good hater, face up to your foe
Whom you regard in such low esteem
Then perhaps you can hate him from what of him you know
Rather than that for which he only seems

Talking Tough?

He challenged me boldly in two-fisted duel
Thinking I might be the kind of fool
To take him up upon this barbaric offer
Without pondering options I may instead proffer

With such hostility does he my person despise
Yet, were wherewithal had then perhaps otherwise
He’d engage me from across a board of chess
And spare us both a bloody awful mess

Having yet to decide which course to pursue
I’ll give it consideration, maybe just for a day or two
Reflecting upon the harsh, taunting threat
Before involving in something that I might later regret

Defeating me in combat he may very well succeed
But trust me on this, he will suffer indeed
Staggering home victorious that awesome night
While knowing for certain it was one hell of a fight