Bachmann Whargarble

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/06/john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father-michele-bachmann-says-yes.html

The amount of derp that this woman spews forth on a daily basis should provide enough evidence to anyone of any intelligence, that she does not posses it.

But her being an elected representative is the consequence of our “perfecting” democracy.

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. – H. L. Mencken

Remember, our Founding Fathers, never intended the vast majority of people that live in America to vote. And we were never meant to be a democracy, a republic rather.

I mean, initially, it was only white, male, landowners that had the right to vote. The prevailing wisdom at the time was: “These people are educated and have a vested interest in the well being of the nation and won’t screw it up. Those poor uneducated people will just vote to fill their bellies at the cost of us (the white, male, landowners). And isn’t that why we fought this war in the first place? To get other people’s hands out of our pockets?”

In fact, the founding fathers were so distrustful of the possibility of a demagog, they didn’t even trust THEM to vote correctly. They simply voted for their smarter brethren to vote for them in the electoral college.

So no. Not trolling. Not saying that we need to disenfranchise all non-white, male, landowners; but rather the fact that we have someone like Bachmann in congress should come to no surprise to anyone who has actually studied American History. Especially when the institution of public education (which was instituted, despite its socialistic nature, to prevent exactly this) is so poorly tended.

Ailen Life

So undoubtedly a common post, but what if alien life exists?

In the deepest recesses of my mind exists the thought that aliens do exist.  They exist; and through proper, or appropriated channels, have made contact with humans.  And it is, ignoring the demons within, compelled by alcohol’s delirious haze, that I write the following missal.

So we live with the basic assumption that who we are, is as we perceive it.  Which is to say, that life IS the information that is available to us.  But what if the factual information, upon which we base that assumption were to be, irrefutably changed.

Muslims believe that to be gay is an abomination upon God.  Similarly, there is a condemnation in Leviticus in the Judeo-Christian belief.

But suppose that science finds that being gay, or homosexual, is merely a condition of genetics.  There already exist proof that other species here on earth exhibit similar behavior (see: dolphins, penguins, ducks.)  But what does that say about the knowledge that we hold to be self-defining?

If we take, at face value, that the word of God is manifest in Scripture, then what does that say about God?  If science proves, in a scientifically irrefutable way, that Scripture is wrong, then what does that say about our understanding of the universe?

I argue that this is the same conflict that Alien Life presents us.

Perhaps that the possibility that all we know is wrong, is so psychologically overwhelming, that wisest among us (read: those in power/positions of authority) have conspired to keep this information secret.

But what is it to say that we’re not alone in the universe?  What is it to say that all we know is wrong?

Nothing.

And perhaps that therein lies the fear.

With religion, we can be confident in our knowledge.  Life is as it appears.  Knowledge, presented by the all knowing Creator, has been passed through the ages; revealing the nature of reality.  And absent that knowledge, we are cast adrift, soul-less and mindless in the void.

I find that nihilism freeing.

What is it to say we are without a known creator?

Again, NOTHING!

Nevertheless, we exist.

Without morality, without causality, we still, more or less, peacefully coexist.

And generally, the absence of God, or a god-like figure, tends to make humans (or at the very least fiction writers) degenerate into a state of Hobbesian chaos.  But presupposing His absence, we still exist in the present state.

And if God does not exist, and furthermore, never has; what does that say about the nature of mankind?  Devoid an omnipotent, omniscient being what are the characteristics of humans?

Are we cruel?  Are we overwhelming sadistic? Delusional?  Susceptible?

I think, the call for us to define ourselves is what scares us the most.  And the knowledge, the unassailable knowledge that we must do exactly that, is what scares us most of all.

And while others may be afraid of this prospect, I take solace in the fact that we have come this far; and accomplished this much.

So devoid a god?

I say mankind, by the by, is good.  And hopefully,  we need not look beyond our innate genetic code to attest to that fact (as my personal theory is that compassion is wet wired into our brains and psychopathy is a genetic defect).

But absent a genetic predisposition to good?  I can only hope that the sociopolitical/environmental conditioning has us reprogramming the code towards that end.  Otherwise, we have only the environment that required us to cooperate.

And if environment (read: divine forces) forced us to cooperate, can existence be all that bad?

A mind exercise for the bored

 

Heterosis and You

Heterosis is a process, described by Darwin, in which cross-breeding yields genetically fitter offspring.  And according to this article, this process occurs in humans;  mixed-race people are more attractive and successful.  While I’m most likely selection biasing, It validates a long held belief/precept:  I’ve always felt an obligation to marry a woman who wasn’t white.  And I know that sounds racist, but I think I’ve already established my stance on that.  But regardless, I felt I owed it to the human race AND whatever child I might have (that last one being the real kicker).

My illuminating intellect aside, I’m no genetic jackpot.  I have an endless, ENDLESS list of food allergies, I’m short-sighted, and I’m prone to depression.  (ok, maybe the list’s not endless, but it’s very long).  The sad part is, I inherited all of these problems from my father:  He has the same allergies, wears thick glasses, and sits in front of a bright light all winter.  And while I seem to be the only replicated mutation amongst my siblings,  I imagine the odds would be significantly lower had my father married a non-white woman (although obviously, *I*, your glorious writer, wouldn’t exist).

But that is a fate that I wish to spare any of my future offspring.  In fact, anything I could do to reduce their potential suffering I would.  Marrying a woman who isn’t white is the least I can do.   And if there was GATTICA technology I’d be the first…. errr perhaps the 10000th person to sign up.  Plus it’s probably just an excuse to fetishize other races.

What’s so bad about marrying your horse?

So I watched this latest Maddow clip (still hot btw), and the ignorant republican tries to make the argument that because of a supposedly loose definition of marriage by the Massachusetts of Marriage, that eventually one can marry their horse.  But I ask you: what if you could marry your horse?  What then?

You’d have to imagine a person who would be willing to marry their horse.  Would it be someone genuinely in love with thier horse or someone protesting?  Or tax purposes?  In either case; what harm does it do to YOUR marriage.

Unless I’ve misunderstood the institution, as it’s presented in modern day, it’s an agreement (of whatever quality) between two parties.  The strength of our agreement has absoultely no relation to the strength of another.  “Our love stands alone?”  11 year old girls are being married to 41 year old men.  I mean, yeah technically, this marriage.  But the real question is: Just because some corrupt or deluded imam has condoned this action; does that give you free reign to cheat on your wife?

Obviously not.

Or is this unwillingness/resistance to “gay” marriage a deflection of one’s own insecurities about their own, officially sanctioned, marriage.  Part of marriage is publicly recognizing one another;  to look at the other and say: “Yes. That is mine!”  in a crowd of people.  Especially when they’re at their worst.  But if one is so foolish as to want to recognize their horse as that “person” then by all means let them.  It doesn’t diminish the relationship/agreement that I have with my wife/dog.  Furthermore, by no means does the law protect them from shunning and ridicule.  Both of which are, and should, be legal. “Society must have standards.”

But that aside, the real question (in my perverted mind) is: would you be OK with a human marrying another species?  Avatar, is that OK?  Would you marry something without a body?  (think Ghost with Patrick Swazey only real and alien).

So what is marriage EXACTLY?

I couldn’t say.  It’s up to you and your cat(s).

Think for Yourself

Today I received an email from a friend of mine.  And keep in mind that when I say this,  I love the guy to death.  While some people may consider me excessively outspoken and overly critical of the government, my friend is miles ahead of me.  He generally agrees with everything that Alex Jones says.  He’s always on InfoWars and the like.  And quite often he will send out mass emails making sure that we’re aware of  “alternative” interpretations of events.  Many people find this endlessly annoying (as discussed in a brief “these email are stupid” flame war).  So while I might agree with his views on government, the manner in which we choose to be informed and inform others is, let’s just say… different.

Like I said, many hate getting his “spam.”  Sometimes, admittedly, they’re not all that great, but this one I thought was actually pretty good.

The title of the post is his closing line.  It was also my reply to the purplestates.tv/ CNN front page thing.  It’s a reminder to question your sources, no matter how “trusted” they are.  And that you don’t always have to agree.

We often forget that we are not just students, wives,  workers; but rather that each one of us is an arbiter of truth.  We have a moral responsibility to determine the truth.  And if we begin to listen to only one voice we fail in that duty.

“Do not believe what I said simply because I said it; but rather because you have examined it for yourself and find it to be true.”

-Siddhartha Gautama

While I didn’t even click any of the links, the message is strong and I encourage you all to read it.  What follows is his email, unedited, and in its entirety.

Title: some context for today’s news

Body:

Today, an angry man flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX… allegedly…

Not long after his approximately 10am CST impact, a ‘manifesto’ attributed to him was found on a website.  click this link to read it.

I’m sure there’ll be a lot more to come from this story in the next few days and I urge you to question the validity of anything that’s reported.  Think for yourself.  Do not automatically buy in to what Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, or your corporate media shill of choice have to say about it.  This may very well be a man who’d had enough, and took it out on who he believed to be his persecutors… or it may be something else entirely.  It doesn’t matter in either case.  Because this incident, like many others, a few of which are discussed below, will be used as an excuse to further eliminate privacy rights and demonize well-meaning, ‘freedom’ oriented groups and label them as extremists.

This is not okay.

“Those do not forget the events of the recent past:  Ft. Hood is just north of Austin, TX and that psychiatrist/gunman was allowed military clearance for MONTHS after it was fully known that he had intimate contact with Islamist extremists …why?  And while I wholeheartedly disagree with torture interrogation, if we wanted Hasan to lead us to an Al-Qaeda big fish, whatever happened to water-boarding?

The underwear bomber was able to board an international flight without having any luggage or a PASSPORT! (<<< notice the same explanation/excuse of ‘we wanted to allow him to operate so he could lead us to a bigger fish’ was used for this guy as well)  …why?  Our security agencies detain students, grandpas, and disabled toddlers, all the time, so why not this clearly suspicious guy who, were it not for courageous/fast-acting citizens sitting nearby, would have killed people!

And who was the ‘sharp-dressed man’ who helped him get on the flight? Why aren’t our journalists asking these questions? (<<< the previous link is from the eye-witness’s own blog) Why have these stories gone away so quickly?

Ask yourself.

Odd-balls come from the left too, not just Islamic extremists and right wing nut-jobs.  The Alabama-Huntsville shooter was “obsessed with Obama” and ‘accidentally’ killed her own brother some years ago.

I hope these incidents and the offenders, victims, and witnesses involved his have demonstrated that this has nothing to do with political party.  The media has swept these incidents under the proverbial rug before getting to the bottom of things.   More laws and restrictions inspired by these events do not keep you and I safer.  Having our naked bodies scanned and hands swabbed does not prevent terrorism, it just set the precedent for more invasions on freedom and privacy.

Whatever your political affiliation, talk to your friends and loved ones about this stuff.

Share information with each other.

Think for yourself.

Sudden Realization

For the record I’m doing this post from my iPhone. Which is why iPhone is capitalized. But that aside there are things to be said.

This whole tablet thing? I’m fuckin sick of it!!

Why do I need to hear about what it will and won’t do? Is it really relevant? Let’s see… Will it have wifi? Hmmmn tough call… Will it feature seamless integration? Price point omg!??!

Apple does put out some pretty sweet products. But what irritates me the most whole iTablet (I capitolized that, guess it’s not true. ) is, that regardless of it’s existance, Apple can only benifit from the rumor mill process.

As I write I come to a sudden realization.

That the program crashed and lost the post and by that time apple had announced the iPad.

And it sucks. 16g storage? No multitasking? No camera? No flash? Nuff said.

The hype makes them money pushing inferior products until they actually produce a product that people desire. I had not desired an iPhone prior to copy/paste and more storage.

When the iPad gets those features then I’ll want it.

Hey there.. I’m rambling

Dunno.  Haven’t posted in a while.  So now I’m posting… Right… anyway.

So decidedly I don’t think all of my post have to be deep.  That’s somewhat antithetical to the sardonic tag line.  So apparently average something like 2 hits a week which is way down from my high of 97.  So at 2 hits a week I’m it’s as if as I’m talking to myself.  And for all I know those two hits could bots.  Anyway, it’s probably best that I do this for me regardless.   It’s doubtful that anyone will ever take this blog somewhat seriously.  Enough so I could make income off of it… OR!  more importantly, get people to hear the truth!  But my problem is that generally speaking I come off as less than credible source when it comes to higher reasoning.  Mainly because my personal life’s a mess, but that’s a different story.

*I* would like to think, no different from any other person, that the ideas that I hold are correct.  And the reason that I’m so good at being right is due to a life-time of practice.  But being right is not enough.  You must convert your opponents!  Which, admittedly, is hard to do if you consider them opponents.  I mean we’ve seen how well that turned out over seas…  But I digress.  If you’re anyone who knows me, you know I love to argue.   And the side effect of arguing is losing.  While some arguers/lawyers are like Denny Crane, I would have to say that I’m not one of them.  That having been said, when I lose, I have to lose on merit.  They have to have a point more valid for me to concede.  Which is not an easy thing to do; but nevertheless occasionally did occur.  It was in this manner that I went through series of changes in Political ideology.  I went from a communist to a socialist to abhorring labels (because if you label yourself you instantly become friend or foe, but I digress).  That having been said though; I would say that the things I talk about, I believe.  And furthermore I have discussed them in great detail, examining every angle.  Ok maybe not… more like talk about with like minded people being each other’s yes men.  Wow, ok…

 

So, just like any other person, I don’t like someone discrediting my points because of my personal life.  Examine the message, not the messenger.  Unless the messenger is, like, and alien or covered in blood or something…

In the same vein, I believe the same rule should apply for politicians.  They can be as philanderous or coked up as they want; provided that the polices they enact are what the people desire.  Mayor Quimby is a great model.  He’s got whores and a secret family, but when the people of Spingfield come to him with a problem, he gives them what they want.  And so it should be for all politicians.  Unless of course he’s an alien or covered in blood or something.  They can screw their own life as much as they want and as long as they don’t sell or abuse their POWER they should get re-elected every time.   Alas this is not the way the world works. And sadly, in general, we tend to assume that politician in the spotlight of marital fidelity is usually doing something else immoral/illegal.  While this is often the case, this doesn’t mean that the practice should be to assume that faithful representative of the people’s will should be deemed incompetent.

This is perhaps why my personal hero is Spider Jerusalem.  Despite his massive failure of a personal life, he still gets the Truth out there.  And people may love him or hate him (though aparently he hates to be loved by the public) but nevertheless he tells the Truth.  And when I say his life was a mess; I *mean* a mess.  I don’t think there’s any time he’s not on multiple drugs.  Women turn him down for dates on live television.  Anyway.  I digress.

To sum it up:  Listen to the message but ignore the messanger.

And polticians or any men of power, provided they aren’t abusing thier position and they’re doing what they’ve been elected/hired/appointed to do, should always stay in office despite any media scandals regarding marital infidelity or drug usage.
And yes.  I know that’s not very succinct.

I am not a Pessimist

I reject, wholeheartedly, the assertion that I have a pessimistic view of human nature.  Quite the contrary, I believe that the course of human history and our lives here on earth would not be possible were we not inherently good.  But this belief does not proscribe me from recognizing the darker side of human nature.  It is perhaps this awareness of our capacity of atrocity and lawlessness that makes me appear pessimistic.

Jesse points out, and rightly so, that we are social creatures.  Although this was not highlighted, as it obviously should have been, in my previous post; it is precisely our social nature that I love about a post-apocalypse: “humanity sans society.”   We do not stop being social with the destruction of society.  Our social circle shrinks indefinitely but we still cooperate, share resources, and argue.  In fact, humans living alone go crazy, so much so that some call solitary confinement torture.  I think the best of the PA stories show the unification of survivors against some external threat, be it mutants, zombies, or the unforgiving environment. But what I love best about the PA setup is that it all plays out without the specter of government.  People must choose to band together or die alone, to cooperate or cannibalize, to rebuild or ravage.  PA stories remind us that humanity, our humanity, is a personal choice; that’s all it’s been that’s all it ever will be.   Without an external agent (the government) enforcing law, arbitrary or otherwise, we are reminded that the responsibility of society is personal, not governmental.  No amount of legislation of governmental regulation can prevent a person from choosing chaos.   The decision to be moral comes from within, not without.  But my awareness of this reality, our propensity for evil, does not make me as pessimist.  I believe that most people will choose right over wrong, good over evil, and truth over darkness.  I just don’t think we need the government to do so.

And I don’t even need my faith in mankind to believe that humans are mostly good.  There has been a great deal of research done into the field of primate altruism.  The evidence points to the fact that morality is innate and has little to do with an intuitional framework.  There is a great post on this matter here. Not only is altruism innate, but also the desire to see the wicked punished.  People, and primates, are often willing to even hurt themselves in order to make sure that an evildoer is punished.  All this leads me to believe that we are inherently good and will continue to be so, all without the specter of government.

Why I Love a Post-Apocalypse

Enforcement is 10/10ths of the Law
-Me

In 1993 Congress passed the Brady Bill.  A gun control law, it mandated a background check and waiting period any new purchase.  It represents our best effort to curb gun violence.  The idea is that with the background check and a waiting period the WRONG people won’t get thier hands on guns; namely violent convicts and those in the throws of passion.  While I generally dislike ANY restrictions on my freedoms;  I can understand a minor inconvenience for the greater good, keeping in mind that ANY restriction on freedom is a slippery slope.  But, nevertheless, if I, a law abiding, well intentioned citizen has to put up with a minor inconvenience (a waiting period and background check) so that spiteful and temporarily insane people won’t be able to go and murder their cheating spouse, then *I* can abide such a restriction.   After all, we are civilized.  If I’m so damn impatient that I can’t put up with waiting for a few days to purchase a handgun, perhaps I don’t belong as part of this society.  In the meantime, I can expect that my neighbor won’t go on murderous rampage, or at the very least, that if s/he does that some form of justice will prevail.

It is for this reason that I love a Post-Apocalypse.  In a Post-Apocalypse the presumption of civility, society, and justice is outright preposterous.  With the world collapsing or collapsed around your ears; to expect people to help each other out, to be civil, is naivete at it’s worst.  I mean, The first rule of a zombie apocalypse is “stop being such as pansy.”  If you allow for any weakness, at any time, it means your death, plain and simple.  The consequence and situation, by definition, is DIRE!!!  Every wo/man for them self.  I like to say it’s humanity sans society.  It’s only in a civilized society do we have time to care about issues such as homosexuality.  Only a society that has time and resources to spare can pay attention to the way OTHER people live their lives.  In a Post-Apocalypse, as long as that person isn’t shooting you or stealing from you, then they’re A-OK in your book.  You can’t worry about the fact that person worships a wax candle; YOU have greater things to worry about.  And it is for this reason I love a Post-Apocalypse.  It reminds us of our humanity.  Not our nationality, not our religion, but our COMMON humanity.  It reminds us how we are always “teetering” on the edge and how little it takes to push us over.  And how much of our presumptions about how society works are just that, presumptions.

But what really prompted this article was a discussion that I had with some of my friends.  We were basically arguing about the second amendment.  Their basic argument was guns to plowshares.  By eliminating handguns (weapons, in their estimation, which are designed ONLY to kill humans) we benefit the greater good.  Mind you, this person was still permissive of the use of guns for hunting.  Thier strongest point being that if there is an accident with a handgun it CAN be fatal.  So basically, because we live in such as lawful and civilized society AND because everyone there agreed that violence and killing is bad; we should forfeit such our personal liberties to advance society.

The romantic thrust of the argument was strong.  It reaches inside and pulls at my heartstrings.   I agree, “Why CAN’T we all just get along?” But in Post-Apocalyptic (yes, seriously), and even statistical, light the argument falls apart.  You can’t legislate change in the human heart.  Britain banned handguns in 1997 and since seen a dramatic rise, nearly double, in the use of handguns in crimes; giving credence to the saying “if you out-law guns then only outlaws will have guns.” And even every year for the last couple of years they’ve seen double digit rise in knife crime;  what I can only imagine is the natural response to the unavaliablity of handguns.  So the only real effect that I see from the handgun ban is that in a collapse of society, an “Apocalypse” if you will, the honest, law-abiding Brits are going to be less prepared.  

Now people are bound to claim that: “We don’t live in a zombie infested world” or “Our society/government is good and will ALWAYS remain so.”  And for those reasons, anything I say is invalid.   I proffer instead, that this reason only exists because as a society have known no hardships, no violence.  And we tend to think, because of our predisposition not to think further than our own experinence, that because it hasn’t happened, and hasn’t happened to us, that it won’t and CAN’T happen.  It was for this reason that when Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, he wandered for 40 years.  It wasn’t because God didn’t know the way; but rather because God needed those people with the slave mentality to die.  A whole generation had to pass before they could be ready to live on their own, without the direct intervention of God (ala manna).  My friend, the history major, Henry made a great point.  He said, “it’s all about the mentality of the times.  What do you think an American citizen, 8 years after the War of Independence, would say to a proposed handgun ban?  Do you think they’d be for it or against it?”

So when considering such laws; we REALLY have to ask ourselves, are we really, REALLY, all that different from them?  Have the motivations and desires that have shaped human history for thousand years suddenly changed in the last decade? last century?  Does the invention of the microwave make a scorned woman any less furious?  Does the airplane mean that absoulte power no longer corrupts absoultely?  Because if Edison’s light bulb really IS the light of justice burning brightly in the heart OF US ALL; then by all means, take my guns.

I got a STIMULUS for ya!!!

In post-apocalyptic markets, the rule of fair trade is lethally enforced.  Theft is punished by swift and unceremonious execution.  The point of the policy is to encourage free trade.  No one will do business at the market if they know their hard earned goods will be stolen: on the road to the market, by thieves, or a crooked administrator.  The market must establish a “safe zone.” If the market cannot defend itself from invaders from without or within, it is not a viable market.  The same is true of America.  Despite our relative success in defending America from foreign invaders; we have done a poor job of keeping OUR OWN leader(s) from raiding the coffers.  And this means the death of the market.

But no market is EXACTLY a free market.  Even in the post-apocalyptic market there are taxes and tariffs.  The rulers of these markets need to eat as well and at the minimum they need to pay the guards.  But as the only practical service they provide is the market, obviously they need to levy taxes.  Taxes to maintain peace.  To ensure fair trade.  It’s only when these leaders get greedy that problems arise.  And when this happens the people either leave the market or rebel. In either case there is market disruption.   The only way people return their trust to the market is after a new order is established: one that ends the abuses and punishes the abusers.  Until that happens the market will be on its path to its own demise.

This is exactly the problem we have in the government right now.  For too long, the leaders of our “free” market have been taxing to heavily to feed their own guards (lobbyist and special interests).  The market is shaky because no one is willing to trade in the American market.  We rob from anyone who might choose to enter the market.  We may redistribute some of the goods, but nevertheless the participants, the traders lose out.  No traders, no market, no good times.  Calvin Coolidge knew this when he said “the chief business of Americans is business.”  We know who’s getting what and how the market’s being run.  And surprise! We’re not happy with it.  Until we see that the rule of fair trade has been reestablished we’re not going to trade in this market.

So my STIMULUS PACKAGE:

String the fuckers up.  Prosecute Cheny, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang.  Show us that the rule of law still applies.  Put those salmonella peanuts manufacturers in Jail.  Show the world that, YES, we still want to do business.  Heads on pikes works well for the post apocalypse, why not our terrible leaders in Jail.  I bet you that’ll stimulate the economy more than a “long” debated stimulus package.