Obama and the "Grand Bargain"

I was telling people that, whether you voted for Obama for a second term or not, it was not going to do anything. Well, I was wrong.

With a clear Victory just a few weeks in the past, you'd think that President Obama would finally move forward with all those promises once elected. He has followed in the weeks hence that, with the power of the National Defense Authorization Act which he passed earlier this year, he can "...kill anyone in the world, without even probably cause."

And now, he is set to make what is being called the Grand Bargain with the Republican't's (who, btw, lost in large numbers to Democrats [or as the Un-loyal Opposition calls them I'm sure 'Demon-crats']) is about to strike a bargain (for them, not the rest of us) that will cut the very social services that he swore to protect, and, oh yeah, maintain the Rich's insane tax advantages, rendering the Rest of Us [throwing animal 'left overs' from slaughter houses is called "Rendering' of animals] officially high and dry.

Now, with the NDAA at his disposal, he can 'take out' me for criticizing his administration because of the above statement.

I'll say my adieus now...

It's that Time of the Year!

And I"m not talking about either Christmas or the Beginning of the School Year. No, It's Election Time! Or as I refer to it as, time for Electile Dysfunction! And only the Red Pill will cure this one, not the Blue Pill (in either Matrix or Erectile Land).

NO. Elections are rigged. There, I said it. No matter whether you vote for Obama or That Other Guy, guess who is going to win?

Obama was allowed to win the last time, because... Well, because the economic shit was about to hit the fan, and they needed Somebody To Blame. Enter, Barack Obama. Not only a Democrat, but a Democrat of Color. ("See, I told ya one of Them would get us in trouble!") Can you spell Set Up?

So now they want one of Their Own back in office, and, enter Willard "Mitt" Romney. (Why are all the Mormon Higher Ups called "Willard?") Sorry to be blunt. (And I hope I'm just being paranoid.) Just like I predicted pre-Bush in 1998, I think that no matter who the "Popular Vote" comes in for, The Electile Dysfunction College with install ROMULUS into office instead of POTUS.

Just saying. And hope I'm wrong.

“Religious Freedom”

There has been a cry on the Religious Right for some time now that “Christians” are being “persecuted” – both here in the States and around the world. As if this was a recent event, and that it is totally and completely uncalled for and must be stopped.

While true that the early Christians were persecuted (first by the Jews as an heretical outcropping of Judaism), and then later by the Romans (who saw the new religion as subversive to the State of Rome – indeed, the Cross was the Roman form of punishment for Sedition Against Rome), religious persecution of “Christians” has only been on the rise recently, and then mostly in conflict with Islam.

Now “Christians” persecuting those with Other Religious Belief Systems has been around for almost as long as the Christian Religion has. Since the Nicean Council of 364 “A.D.” the newly formalized (and ‘restructured’) Christian Church began prosecuting (and outright murdering in some cases) any who did not believe The One True Faith. This was particularly true for the Jews, who the Church began calling the “Killers of Christ” from an early time, leading up to the Grand Inquisition.  Working to ‘convert’ “heathen” to the Church, many were either force converted (upon pain of death) and then continued their practice in secrecy (the Ladino tradition in Spain), or killed during the ‘conversion’ process. Many of those screaming “Christian Persecution” choose not to remember who was persecuting whom for most of Church history.

 “Religious Freedom” does not mean the Freedom to impose Your Religion on Others. It means just that, the Individuals Freedom to believe in and practice the Religion of their choice. This has not however, been the case in the past, and it is not the desire or implication of those who cry loudest for Their “Religious Freedom.”

"Should Bible Classes be allowed in public schools?"

This was posted by the novelist Anne Rice on her Facebook Page asking for opinions. This below is my response (expanded, of course).

Ms. Rice I'm sorry, but there's a very great distance between what this Governor is advocating (proselytizing Bible 'studies') and what you're advocating (the history of and discerning what/where/how the 'Bible' has influenced 'Western civilization'). This State Official is advocating the opinions of the most radically Reich in her state to influence any and all students about Das Book (which is really all "The Bible" means since for centuries it was the ONLY Book that was allowed to be 'read' [mostly taught, since only the most powerful could even read]).

This would be simple indoctrination and not anything approaching 'study' at all. This is not Constitutionally valid and therefore should not even be considered and should be struck down with all speed (if possible) by the Supreme Court (not that that's going to happen).

From the article in question: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law a bill that allows the establishing of elective classes that focus on the Bible and its influence on western civilization.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ariz-governor-signs-bill-to-allow-bible-classes-in-public-schools-73485/#2Rmb6bAVQOzeFMpi.99

"A teacher who instructs a course offered under this section in its [blogger emphasis added] appropriate historical context and in good faith shall be immune from civil liability and disciplinary action," reads the bill.

Ah, and here's the rub. "...in good faith..." There are so many small points of darkness in this potential 'teaching' that boggle the imagination. In bringing in this seemingly benign 'educational opportunity' a gaping hole is being introduced into the Constitutional fabric of the nation. Born-agains are shouting about 'Christian pursecution' while striving to back-door their particular brand of 'Christianity' into the Law of the land.

Never mind that most of the students who would be subject to whatever material that such a 'course' might bring are already 'of The Faith.'  So why can't they receive such information from their Church? Because that is not the intent of this 'bill.'

The insidiousness of this 'bill' would be the means of opening similar 'legislation' in other states. It would be a seemingly innocuous teaching of 'history' to any and all who 'wished to partake.' For now. 

For those of  us whose ideas and beliefs are different from those of the Far Reich, now is the time to speak out against this 'legal means' of 'teaching about "The Bible." ' I am not opposed to the ideas of The Man who they (think they) believe in, but I do oppose any means of further indoctrination in a country that is increasingly non-Christian. Even for those of us who consider ourselves "Christian" (and I count myself [in a qualified way] among those believers), this seems like a non-issue. But I assure you, it isn't.

"Damn I'm rich! $$$$"

This was the post of someone I know on Facebook regarding a web site he went to on the relative wealth of most Americans. I know it was meant to show that We The People aren't really doing so badly compared to the rest of the world. I also know it was meant to engender gratitude for what We have. But it still is a gross over-simplification of what the real issues are (and to the conspiratorial mind-set, perhaps is meant to calm and mollify those of us in the 99% of this country).  

But the real issue is in all of this, that however much We Americans have (once again, at least in the 99%) more than the rest of the world, poverty is relative. If you only make a dollar a day and subsistence is $1.25, that's much better than making $6 an hour when you actually need $8 to truly survive. These sites and 'meters' don't take into consideration a great many things. For an increasing many in this country, they are skewing more towards Third (and Forth) World living every day. 

Americans need to simplify their lives for the most part. And they can do with a lot less in the material realm than they think they can. Americans have been led into thinking that they Need To Have so much, because... well, because They're Americans, dammit! The Country has been marketed into excessive material to prove how well We Are as a country (and to feed the 1% 's insatiable need to OWN EVERYTHING). Americans are now as a People being forced to cut back their expectations because those said expectations were not anywhere approaching reason (that's why most Americans are up to the tops of their increasingly disappearing hairlines in DEBT [called the "Sweet Spot" by the Credito-Industrial Complex]).

But that said, the incidence of homelessness is increasing exponentially in this country. I for instance was homeless for almost three years (living on the couches of friends, etc. with no money coming in). And I had these resources to keep me from the worst of it. According to this sites scale, I'm filthily wealthy -- and believe me, that ain't the case.

So, yes. I am relatively well off. I now have enough money to eat, and to pay my (adjusted due to disability) rent. I don't have a car still (in LA, that's sacrilege!). And here it is, yet another holiday, and I didn't have enough 'spare cash' to do anything besides go to a pot-luck party later today. In the meantime, I'm 'working' (writing). I hope someday soon to at least have a car to go for a (small luxury) scenic drive for a holiday. Perhaps soon, I'll have even more available funds to do even more.

But right here, right now, I'm grateful for what I have. I wish everyone else that gratitude as well. 

And I also wish that the World some day comes into more of an equitable equal distribution of quality of life. We're not there yet though. Don't let the truly Wealthy mollify you into believing that this is 'all right' (cause it ain't).

Plastic, Profit and 'Progressive Nonsense!' oh, my.

[The below was written as a(n expanded) response to a story on NPR (and a comment from a Conservative critic railing against "Progressives" and their/my agenda against 'Free Enterprise and the American Way'), regarding the banning of Bottled Water containers movement that is growing on college campus'. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/12/146692656/battling-the-bottle-students-and-industry-face-off-over-water>. ]

Ah, "Conservatives!' Things like 'conserving the ecosphere' don't appear in their agendas. 'Conserving' profit, however, always does. 'Saving American Jobs' always does too, while these same 'Conservatives' either help to/ or are directly related to shipping 'American Jobs' to Third World countries, and the China they were so rabidly against (until it became a 'hugely profitable market.'

They don't want to ban plastic bottles, and where I live in Santa Monica, Ca., rail against the banning of plastic bags. 'Outrage!' they say. 'People should be able to buy whatever they want to!' they cry (when it effects their same bottom line about not beiing able to sell another kind f plastic -- most of which ends up either in the trash, or worse yet, gets ejected as soon as it gets out of the store ('I gotta right to it. I pay for it.' Yes, you do. All of us do.)

Which leads us to the Pacific Plastic Gyre. As big now as the state of Alaska (imagine that) and still growing, it is quickly polishing off the Pacific and its ability to recycle air, as well as, yes, ending up in the seafood you eat (which I haven't now  since sixteen -- Oh, the 'Conservative' horror! I've been a vegetarian since then). This, along with the killing of the Gulf of Mexico from, first the runoff from the Mississippi and the factory farming all along its length, to the BP oil spill (which seen from space in NASA photos whose trail of death is shown to be reaching almost to the Yucatan Peninsula and Belize).

That profit eclipses ecology comes as no surprise, but the depth of the self-serving-ness of these 'Conservatives' for some reason always does.

Talk about the "Nuclear Option"...

At a time when our world is teetering on the brink of ecological collapse (yes, I know it's a bright sunny day out there probably as you read this), the Republicans are out to kill off legislation that was hard won and will be hard to get back once they have decimated it.

Other global competitors (especially China) are playing to win this race for a clean energy future, and we should be working together to create the 21st century technologies that will help us grow our stagnant economy, cut pollution even further, and end our over-addiction to oil and other fossil fuels; instead of working against our own good. If China can have clean air standards, why can't the US?

Instead, some in Congress seem more interested in taking us back to the19th century, where you couldn't see for the coal smoke in most major cities. Or even as late as the 1980's, where I'm told that the wir was so thick with pollutions some days, you couldn't see the end of your block.

The latest proposal by Wyoming Senator John Barrasso is  attempting to gut the EPA AND every other federal agency from using the Clean Air Act AND any other environmental law to do anything about reducing America's clean air and climate pollution. After thirty years of improvements, the Republicans want to take us back to the Bad Old Yesteryears.

And just for good measure, it would also preempt state climate actions. Please tell me where these legislators who have in the past been so pro "States Rights" can justify this nonsense?

A similar proposal by West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller would halt EPA actions to reduce carbon pollution for at least two years. These proposals are part of a coordinated pro-polluter assault on America's clean air standards that would reverse important progress we've made to cut pollution and promote innovation.

The 21st century will be a clean energy century. If Congress refuses to fulfill its responsibility to pass a strong climate and energy bill, it should at least get out of the way of progress.

I strongly urge you to oppose the Barrasso "Do ABSOLUTELY Nothing on Climate" bill, the Rockefeller "Do Nothing for Two Years" bill, and all bills like them. It's time to respond with courage and fortitude.

[Taken in part from an Environmental Defense Fund letter to be found @
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1025 ]