Saturday, December 14, 2013
The legality of secret laws
It’s been made clear from information provided by Edward Snowden that the U.S. government (G.W.Bush and Obama administrations) circumvents the Constitution by utilizing secret laws and secret interpretations (rules and regulatory outgrowths) of various laws to breach the civil liberties of anyone with a digital footprint (American or otherwise). My question is… Are secret laws Constitutional? If yes, it is time to amend the Constitution to outlaw secret laws.
Friday, December 13, 2013
'Santa and Jesus are white'
Megyn Kelly of Fox News is positive that Santa Claus and Jesus are/were white… There is obvious tribal identity in play here in so far as Ms. Kelly is able to relate to these cultural figures on racial commonality. It is clear, that to her, an other-than-white Santa Claus or Jesus could never have attained the status of Santa Claus or Jesus. I was wondering where her tribal identity picks up with regards to class… Is the economic and social class Santa Claus and Jesus known? Would it not be possible for either to be homeless beggars? Slaves? Field hands? What were the class and social conditions of ‘whites’ at the times of Santa Claus and Jesus? If the Northern European whites of 0-400 CE were more culturally backwards than their Middle Eastern contemporaries, would she still insist on a white Santa Claus and Jesus?
This also speaks to the human condition of America today in that the Republican ideology as portrayed by Fox News is highly degradative of any class or race (and sex) they cannot personally identify with. [Anti-headstart funding, anti-raise of minimum wage, anti-labor union rights, anti-abortion/contraception, anti-Obamacare, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-Social Security benefit increase…] This at the same time they claim to be Christians and faithful followers of his teachings.
Historically, the probability is high that Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas) was either a Turk or Greek (see here and here) and Jesus, a Galilean Jew.
This also speaks to the human condition of America today in that the Republican ideology as portrayed by Fox News is highly degradative of any class or race (and sex) they cannot personally identify with. [Anti-headstart funding, anti-raise of minimum wage, anti-labor union rights, anti-abortion/contraception, anti-Obamacare, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti-Social Security benefit increase…] This at the same time they claim to be Christians and faithful followers of his teachings.
Historically, the probability is high that Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas) was either a Turk or Greek (see here and here) and Jesus, a Galilean Jew.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Some contrasts...
A gun owner argument: gun control ‘punishes’ of gun owners who have done nothing wrong.
To play off of ‘guns don't kill people, people kill people.’…
-Drugs don’t make junkies, people make junkies…
Drug control laws ‘punish’ junkies who have done nothing wrong?
-Texting doesn’t kill people, cars kill people…
Anti-texting-while-driving laws ‘punish’ drivers who haven’t injured anyone when texting and driving?
***
The internet has brought about revolutionary changes in the media industry (news/music/video… TV and movie viewing) to the extent that it is unclear what the new paradigms in these fields will or can be. With the effects of global climate change quite literally in the air we breath, where is the energy revolution we so desperately need?
***
After being caught plagiarizing by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), Sen. Rand Paul expressed his regret that he could not duel his opponent (here and here).
As I see it, this is another form of Wayne LaPierre’s statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’; in other words, might makes right. ( I presume Rand Paul casts himself as the ‘good guy’ in this ‘duel’.)
The problem for Sen. Paul (and his Party and their financial backers) is… we all know otherwise.
To play off of ‘guns don't kill people, people kill people.’…
-Drugs don’t make junkies, people make junkies…
Drug control laws ‘punish’ junkies who have done nothing wrong?
-Texting doesn’t kill people, cars kill people…
Anti-texting-while-driving laws ‘punish’ drivers who haven’t injured anyone when texting and driving?
***
The internet has brought about revolutionary changes in the media industry (news/music/video… TV and movie viewing) to the extent that it is unclear what the new paradigms in these fields will or can be. With the effects of global climate change quite literally in the air we breath, where is the energy revolution we so desperately need?
***
After being caught plagiarizing by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), Sen. Rand Paul expressed his regret that he could not duel his opponent (here and here).
As I see it, this is another form of Wayne LaPierre’s statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’; in other words, might makes right. ( I presume Rand Paul casts himself as the ‘good guy’ in this ‘duel’.)
The problem for Sen. Paul (and his Party and their financial backers) is… we all know otherwise.
We need (an) opposition party(ies)
The worst part of the dysfunctional Republican Party in our two-party system is we’ve lost a true opposition party. Aside from Republican efforts to obstruct the Affordable Care Act, much of the conflict between the Democrats and Republicans is manufactured conflict for dramatic effect. After all, conflict = drama = ratings for news media.
The fact is… there are no significant difference between the two parties on economic or foreign policy issues (Benghazi is a manufactured conflict to discredit then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton). And a few differences on social issues (differences: women’s rights, voting rights, LGBT rights; similar: immigration policy, drug policy, education reform, prison/crime policy).
This nation faces many problems whose scale range from local school board controversies to threats of global economic and ecological collapse. We have the tools and resources and fortitude to confront these problems. What we don’t have are political leaders and worst, because they share the same position on these issues, our politicians actively construct legal means to obstruct attempts by political outsiders to advance these causes. It’s time to demand more of our political leaders.
As an end note, laws are easily circumvented:
-regulatory rules can interpret/re-interpret laws to the benefit of various interests (can essentially nullify the intent of the law).
-by budgeting insufficient funds to properly operate a regulatory agency
---
A very short list of issues which would hugely benefit from proper debate from multiple positions:
Financial industry reform
Healthcare reform which addresses rising costs
Immigration
Energy policy, especially relevant to ecological effects
Civil liberties of Americans (NSA spying; voting rights)
Whistleblower protection (including journalists)
Tax policy (including industry subsidies)
Regulatory reform (currently: industry insiders write the rules)
The fact is… there are no significant difference between the two parties on economic or foreign policy issues (Benghazi is a manufactured conflict to discredit then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton). And a few differences on social issues (differences: women’s rights, voting rights, LGBT rights; similar: immigration policy, drug policy, education reform, prison/crime policy).
This nation faces many problems whose scale range from local school board controversies to threats of global economic and ecological collapse. We have the tools and resources and fortitude to confront these problems. What we don’t have are political leaders and worst, because they share the same position on these issues, our politicians actively construct legal means to obstruct attempts by political outsiders to advance these causes. It’s time to demand more of our political leaders.
As an end note, laws are easily circumvented:
-regulatory rules can interpret/re-interpret laws to the benefit of various interests (can essentially nullify the intent of the law).
-by budgeting insufficient funds to properly operate a regulatory agency
---
A very short list of issues which would hugely benefit from proper debate from multiple positions:
Financial industry reform
Healthcare reform which addresses rising costs
Immigration
Energy policy, especially relevant to ecological effects
Civil liberties of Americans (NSA spying; voting rights)
Whistleblower protection (including journalists)
Tax policy (including industry subsidies)
Regulatory reform (currently: industry insiders write the rules)
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Link between default and Social Security…
Fact: The Social Security Trust Funds do not hold any ‘funds’; rather, they hold ‘special U.S. government securities’ which the Social Security administration can redeem at their discretion to cover benefit payouts.
Fact: Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust fund is broke.
Fact: Current Social Security payments have been sufficient to meet the payouts of Social Security programs and are projected to ‘run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021’.
Fact (needs confirmation of role of ‘general funds’ attribution of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trusts): A significant portion of non-Social Security tax receipts and monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds are used to cover other government expenditures: defense and intelligence (heavily dependent on private contractors), education (moderately dependent on private contractors), welfare/social programs, and other spending which includes subsidies (agriculture and energy) and research.
Fact: The richest Americans own the majority of stocks.
Extrapolation: Government functions (thus where government monies are spent) which are dependent on private contractors provide the most financial benefit to those contractors and their stockholders. Government spending on research also benefits stockholders of high technology companies. Therefore, the rich benefit greatly from government spending.
Question: If the Social Security Trust Fund did not exist, would the government have curtailed spending which mostly benefits rich Americans?
Extrapolation: Republican want to avoid raising taxes on the rich which will be necessary to redeem government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. [Alternate interpretation: the government, having given the rich the opportunity to profit from government spending, now expects them to pay taxes on their profit(s).] Republicans are doing this through campaigns to convince Americans that the Social Security Trust fund is broke (see above) and suggesting that a freeze in the debt ceiling does not inevitable result in a government default. Their claim that a default can be avoided through selective payment of government obligations (see here and here) smells of an attempt to void the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. If voided, the Social Security Administration would not be able to redeem them, no additional taxes would be called from and Social Security payments would not be possible.
This is a government version of corporate pension fund raiding. It is illegal and immoral and should be called out as such.
Fact: Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust fund is broke.
Fact: Current Social Security payments have been sufficient to meet the payouts of Social Security programs and are projected to ‘run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021’.
Fact (needs confirmation of role of ‘general funds’ attribution of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trusts): A significant portion of non-Social Security tax receipts and monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds are used to cover other government expenditures: defense and intelligence (heavily dependent on private contractors), education (moderately dependent on private contractors), welfare/social programs, and other spending which includes subsidies (agriculture and energy) and research.
Fact: The richest Americans own the majority of stocks.
Extrapolation: Government functions (thus where government monies are spent) which are dependent on private contractors provide the most financial benefit to those contractors and their stockholders. Government spending on research also benefits stockholders of high technology companies. Therefore, the rich benefit greatly from government spending.
Question: If the Social Security Trust Fund did not exist, would the government have curtailed spending which mostly benefits rich Americans?
Extrapolation: Republican want to avoid raising taxes on the rich which will be necessary to redeem government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. [Alternate interpretation: the government, having given the rich the opportunity to profit from government spending, now expects them to pay taxes on their profit(s).] Republicans are doing this through campaigns to convince Americans that the Social Security Trust fund is broke (see above) and suggesting that a freeze in the debt ceiling does not inevitable result in a government default. Their claim that a default can be avoided through selective payment of government obligations (see here and here) smells of an attempt to void the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. If voided, the Social Security Administration would not be able to redeem them, no additional taxes would be called from and Social Security payments would not be possible.
This is a government version of corporate pension fund raiding. It is illegal and immoral and should be called out as such.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Day 9
So it’s Day 9 of the shutdown because Republicans in Congress aren’t willing to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government and we are careening towards a potential default in less than 10 days. And now, instead of manning up to vote for an unconditional CR, the Republicans are passing piecemeal bills to address each crisis as they get media spotlighted. This isn’t responsible budgeting, this is impulse buying and it does little to resolve the major budget issue and next to no positive PR for the Republican Party.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
King James Bible
I wonder how many American Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians know that King James of the King James Bible fame (on which Scofield Reference Bible is based) is a “…flaming homosexual.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)