Politicians, those who think they are patriots above all others, those who parade their religious convictions for all to see and those who want the public's favor are always invoking "God bless America" at every opportunity. That blessing is so routinely thrown around it's become a joke.
Furthermore, I believe it's what you do personally that makes you worthy of God's blessings, not what this nation's government or any other does as a nation or as a group of people.
God didn't say go ye forth and invade all nations, steal your neighbor's resources and take up arms against them. God didn't command us to rule the earth, subdue and oppress those with whom we philosophically disagree, wreak destruction and havoc upon their lands without regard for collateral damage that kills and maims.
Jesus didn't say gather up much wealth at the expense of your fellow men, take advantage of those you deem less worthy, punish them by withholding your hand unless they can pay, and extract from the earth all you are able with no regard for its welfare, for as surely as our father has anointed the wealthy and the powerful as his chosen people and has provided this earthly paradise for our wanton desires, he will provide a replacement once we have destroyed this one.
In truth, God blesses those who love his creation and are good stewards of this earth. God blesses those who love one another and lives in harmony and peace with all mankind and all God's creatures. Those who value their relationship with God above all else are those who God blesses. Wealth and power is no evidence of favor with God. Where the Hell did that come from? Ruthless dictators throughout history commanded great wealth and power. Is that what God's about?
God's blessings are often not recognizable by greedy commercial standards.
A won war is not a blessing. The killing and maiming of our fellows is not rewarded with God's favor. God does not bestow blessings by way of military might and the power to occupy other nations, or by way of Hummers and BMW's, great mansions and wealth, or by power and control over others. God does not reward baseball players with home runs or stolen bases, does not bless a company's bottom line, does not keep an airliner safe at 20,000 feet in the air, and does not keep it from raining on the day you scheduled a picnic.
I believe God blesses each individual spiritually. God does not bless entire nations, not ethnic or religious groups. God does not bless cities or sports teams and does not decide which airliner crashes. God did not grant you a promotion and is not holding a set of lottery numbers just for you. God has no favorites.
Instead of waving a flag of power, defiance and aggression and robotically repeating, God Bless America, we should all be praying, "God protect us from ourselves, lead us from this darkness and teach us to live rightly in peace and harmony with all others and in the pure light of your love. "
Gary
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Large North American Country For Sale - Cheap!
Are you aware that America is being sold right out from under us and no one is protesting? Here's just one recent example.
Our tax dollars, yours and mine, have been used since the beginning of our nation to build ports, highways and bridges so we the citizens of this nation can move freely about, engage in commerce and conduct our affairs. This "infrastructure" as it's called was built and paid for by Americans. We own it!
Or - we thought we did.
You recall the recent deal to sell our sea ports to a company owned by the Arab state of Dubai? There was a public outcry that effectively stopped that sale but there is no public outcry over the more recent deals taking place.
You've probably heard very little about the deal that recently took place when an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. In addition an Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.
I also heard of a deal in the works to "lease" (they are calling all these deals "leases" to lighten the political impact) a public transportation system in Chicago and there are other deals being arranged without public knowledge or approval.
Key infrastructure now being operated as toll roads and toll bridges, built and paid for and owned by American taxpayers, are being sold by our elected representatives to foreign investment firms. Those politicians arranging these sales claim it's because a private firm can maintain and operate this infrastructure more efficiently and profitably. That's bullshit!
I'm sick and tired of the idea that private companies can do the job more efficiently than big government bureaucracies being used as an excuse for selling off America's social systems, our government and our infrastructure to private investors. If our government and our politicians weren't so corrupt, any government facility or service could be managed and run, not only as cheaply, but more cheaply and more efficiently than any private firm. It's not rocket science and when no open-ended profit requirement is there, I defy anyone to argue that it's not a fact. The only thing that is required is good, intelligent, common sense management and that key element that is so lacking in the majority of people we elect to office - honesty!
These corporate owned and corporate worshipping elected representatives fearlessly and unashamedly admit that one big reason a private firm is so eager to lease this infrastructure is that a private firm can raise tolls without deferring to public pressure, that a private company effectively depoliticizes the tolling decision. To describe this in more easily understood terms, if a state's legislators decide to raise tolls on bridges and toll roads, there is a public outcry and a political fallout. They can avoid this by selling our roads and our bridges, that we built and paid for, to private companies that don't have to answer to the public.
Who is profiting here and who is getting screwed? Who ends up paying more to use their own roads and bridges? And not paying this increased amount to our own government to be used for the benefit of our own citizens, but paying this increased use fee to a foreign company - and in addition these profits are leaving the country instead of being pumped back into our economy.
These politicians are selling these "leases" of our roads and bridges for immediate cash on the barrel head that they claim will be used to fund other public projects like road repairs and other infrastructure without raising taxes. Again, Bullshit! Who knows whose pocket that money will eventually end up in?
These repairs should have been paid for with tax revenues - the same excessive revenues that are being stolen and siphoned off by the industrial war complex, the defense contractors, oil companies and other pirates that are criminally ripping off this country and it's citizens while the majority of us stand stupidly by and argue with each other over gay marriage, flag burning and prayers in schools among other equally stupid issues I won't elaborate on here. These divisive, relatively inconsequential, socially low impact issues are effectively being used to engage and distract us while our pockets are being picked and our country sold to the highest bidder.
Can't you see it??? They want us divided as Republicans and Democrats! They know exactly how to cause us to fight with one another. If we drop this folly, come together and turn our attention on what is really happening in this country we would see the truth.
Americans are the biggest fools of all. Maybe we don't deserve the country our forefathers entrusted to us. Maybe we deserve to have it sold off piece by piece while we argue over a woman's right to choose. One thing is certain, if we don't wake up and take this country back from the corrupt madmen now in charge - we are most certainly doomed.
The money that is being stolen is money that is being borrowed in our name from China and other nations that now hold the note on America. You and your children and our children's children are the ones who must honor that promissory note, not those who are selling our country down the tubes.
They're taking the money and running, laughing all the way to the Swiss banks.
Gary
Our tax dollars, yours and mine, have been used since the beginning of our nation to build ports, highways and bridges so we the citizens of this nation can move freely about, engage in commerce and conduct our affairs. This "infrastructure" as it's called was built and paid for by Americans. We own it!
Or - we thought we did.
You recall the recent deal to sell our sea ports to a company owned by the Arab state of Dubai? There was a public outcry that effectively stopped that sale but there is no public outcry over the more recent deals taking place.
You've probably heard very little about the deal that recently took place when an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. In addition an Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.
I also heard of a deal in the works to "lease" (they are calling all these deals "leases" to lighten the political impact) a public transportation system in Chicago and there are other deals being arranged without public knowledge or approval.
Key infrastructure now being operated as toll roads and toll bridges, built and paid for and owned by American taxpayers, are being sold by our elected representatives to foreign investment firms. Those politicians arranging these sales claim it's because a private firm can maintain and operate this infrastructure more efficiently and profitably. That's bullshit!
I'm sick and tired of the idea that private companies can do the job more efficiently than big government bureaucracies being used as an excuse for selling off America's social systems, our government and our infrastructure to private investors. If our government and our politicians weren't so corrupt, any government facility or service could be managed and run, not only as cheaply, but more cheaply and more efficiently than any private firm. It's not rocket science and when no open-ended profit requirement is there, I defy anyone to argue that it's not a fact. The only thing that is required is good, intelligent, common sense management and that key element that is so lacking in the majority of people we elect to office - honesty!
These corporate owned and corporate worshipping elected representatives fearlessly and unashamedly admit that one big reason a private firm is so eager to lease this infrastructure is that a private firm can raise tolls without deferring to public pressure, that a private company effectively depoliticizes the tolling decision. To describe this in more easily understood terms, if a state's legislators decide to raise tolls on bridges and toll roads, there is a public outcry and a political fallout. They can avoid this by selling our roads and our bridges, that we built and paid for, to private companies that don't have to answer to the public.
Who is profiting here and who is getting screwed? Who ends up paying more to use their own roads and bridges? And not paying this increased amount to our own government to be used for the benefit of our own citizens, but paying this increased use fee to a foreign company - and in addition these profits are leaving the country instead of being pumped back into our economy.
These politicians are selling these "leases" of our roads and bridges for immediate cash on the barrel head that they claim will be used to fund other public projects like road repairs and other infrastructure without raising taxes. Again, Bullshit! Who knows whose pocket that money will eventually end up in?
These repairs should have been paid for with tax revenues - the same excessive revenues that are being stolen and siphoned off by the industrial war complex, the defense contractors, oil companies and other pirates that are criminally ripping off this country and it's citizens while the majority of us stand stupidly by and argue with each other over gay marriage, flag burning and prayers in schools among other equally stupid issues I won't elaborate on here. These divisive, relatively inconsequential, socially low impact issues are effectively being used to engage and distract us while our pockets are being picked and our country sold to the highest bidder.
Can't you see it??? They want us divided as Republicans and Democrats! They know exactly how to cause us to fight with one another. If we drop this folly, come together and turn our attention on what is really happening in this country we would see the truth.
Americans are the biggest fools of all. Maybe we don't deserve the country our forefathers entrusted to us. Maybe we deserve to have it sold off piece by piece while we argue over a woman's right to choose. One thing is certain, if we don't wake up and take this country back from the corrupt madmen now in charge - we are most certainly doomed.
The money that is being stolen is money that is being borrowed in our name from China and other nations that now hold the note on America. You and your children and our children's children are the ones who must honor that promissory note, not those who are selling our country down the tubes.
They're taking the money and running, laughing all the way to the Swiss banks.
Gary
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Donna Brazile and Establishment Democrats Nervous?
Donna Brazile, on today's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, threw down the gauntlet to progressive Democrats regarding the primary challenge to Joe Lieberman's senatorial seat by Ned Lamont. Brazile said she unequivocally supports Joe Lieberman who she called "a good Democrat". Even George Will put in a word for Lieberman. What gives?
Progressive Democrats are apparently being warned that they should not challenge the power in the party - and apparently that includes challenging their representative pundits that live the good life regurgitating the message as glorified spokespersons for the powerful in both parties.
The pundits on This Week, Donna Brazile, George Will and Peter Beinart, all said they thought Lieberman would prevail, but at the same time they admitted that other Democratic Senators who have been supportive of the war effort are watching this race carefully. It was George Will, I think, who cautioned progressives that their support of a candidate should not be about just one issue, the war, even though as most progressive's know, in Lieberman's case it's about a lot more than that one issue.
One thing seems obvious, all the Democratic Party leadership are nervous about this challenge by the netroots, the voice of the people, the progressive element that is gaining unprecedented power. What makes them nervous about average citizens gaining a voice? What makes them nervous about Democracy actually working as it's supposed to?
What is George Will's interest in seeing that Lieberman retains his seat? After all, George is not a Democrat. Could it be he sees Lieberman as a ally of the right? And what is Donna Brazile's interest? Could it be she, as Al Gore's pseudo-quasi, campaign manager in 2000, had something to do with the misguided selection of Lieberman as Gore's running mate and feels threatened by the idea that voters think Lieberman is a lackey for corporations and the powerful?
Could it be the pundits feel that they are the only qualified voice of the people? That they make the decisions and tell us what to think and who to vote for - they and the establishment members of the two major parties?
Could it be they fear their power to control is being threatened - that they will no longer be influential or needed if the citizenry begins thinking for themselves? Do they feel their means of earning a six-figure income by forcing their opinions on the rest of us is possibly in jeopardy?
Yesterday a baseball sports announcer commented that in the baseball world of the past it was once the norm for baseball players to find a way to get along with and meet the demands of the team manager but now it is reversed. Managers in a large way have to meet the demands of the players. After all the players are the team, not the managers. In the same way, the members of the Democratic Party are the Party, not the leadership.
God forbid that members of the Democratic Party rise up and take control of the party away from the corrupt, corporate controlled elitist establishment who serve only themselves.
God forbid that in a Democracy the people's voice be heard.
God forbid that in a Democracy the people have a say in the way their nation is governed and the law of our constitution be honored..
God forbid that in a Democracy the people rule and not the powerful - that in a true republic and a true democracy the people are the power and those elected to serve them listen and respond to them - not attempt to usurp the people's power and rule over them as authoritarians and dictators.
Gary
Progressive Democrats are apparently being warned that they should not challenge the power in the party - and apparently that includes challenging their representative pundits that live the good life regurgitating the message as glorified spokespersons for the powerful in both parties.
The pundits on This Week, Donna Brazile, George Will and Peter Beinart, all said they thought Lieberman would prevail, but at the same time they admitted that other Democratic Senators who have been supportive of the war effort are watching this race carefully. It was George Will, I think, who cautioned progressives that their support of a candidate should not be about just one issue, the war, even though as most progressive's know, in Lieberman's case it's about a lot more than that one issue.
One thing seems obvious, all the Democratic Party leadership are nervous about this challenge by the netroots, the voice of the people, the progressive element that is gaining unprecedented power. What makes them nervous about average citizens gaining a voice? What makes them nervous about Democracy actually working as it's supposed to?
What is George Will's interest in seeing that Lieberman retains his seat? After all, George is not a Democrat. Could it be he sees Lieberman as a ally of the right? And what is Donna Brazile's interest? Could it be she, as Al Gore's pseudo-quasi, campaign manager in 2000, had something to do with the misguided selection of Lieberman as Gore's running mate and feels threatened by the idea that voters think Lieberman is a lackey for corporations and the powerful?
Could it be the pundits feel that they are the only qualified voice of the people? That they make the decisions and tell us what to think and who to vote for - they and the establishment members of the two major parties?
Could it be they fear their power to control is being threatened - that they will no longer be influential or needed if the citizenry begins thinking for themselves? Do they feel their means of earning a six-figure income by forcing their opinions on the rest of us is possibly in jeopardy?
Yesterday a baseball sports announcer commented that in the baseball world of the past it was once the norm for baseball players to find a way to get along with and meet the demands of the team manager but now it is reversed. Managers in a large way have to meet the demands of the players. After all the players are the team, not the managers. In the same way, the members of the Democratic Party are the Party, not the leadership.
God forbid that members of the Democratic Party rise up and take control of the party away from the corrupt, corporate controlled elitist establishment who serve only themselves.
God forbid that in a Democracy the people's voice be heard.
God forbid that in a Democracy the people have a say in the way their nation is governed and the law of our constitution be honored..
God forbid that in a Democracy the people rule and not the powerful - that in a true republic and a true democracy the people are the power and those elected to serve them listen and respond to them - not attempt to usurp the people's power and rule over them as authoritarians and dictators.
Gary
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Challenging Incumbent Democrats
I agree that we progressives need to unite with rank and file Democrats and take our party back, however, in every case it is better to have a Republican Lite Democrat hold the seat than hand the seat to a lock step, loyal-to-the-fuehrer, Republican candidate as distasteful as the incumbent Democrat might be.
But it is never wrong to challenge members of our own party and campaign for an agenda that the majority can support. In almost every case it is better to challenge from within the party. Challenging as a third party, independent candidate carries risk. If their is a strong major party challenger and a third party candidate reaches enough momentum the third party candidate can siphon off enough votes to throw the election to the major party challenger.
So, it is important that any challenger know when to pull in their horns and free up their supporters when it becomes obvious their continued effort would hand the seat to the evil empire. Nader is a prime example of what can happen "when keeping it real goes wrong" as Dave Chappell has pointed out.
On the other hand, Ned Lamont in Connecticut is a good example of when enough is enough and a full out challenge to Joe Lieberman, an established Republican Lite Democrat, is the only recourse. But in Ned's case he is challenging in the Democratic primary which was the right choice and is proving much more effective than a third party challenge.
There comes a point when accepting someone who claims to be a Democrat but who spreads the propaganda, does the bidding and sings the praises of the opposing party and it's corporate masters is no longer conscionable. Lieberman was a Republican Lite weasel when Al Gore selected him for a running mate in 2000 and it didn't help Al Gore's candidacy at all. In fact it very likely hurt Gore. In addition to Joe's weasel status, let's face it, there are many so-called Christians, both Democrat and Republican who would never vote for a Jewish candidate, call it anti-Semitic or whatever you choose, it's a fact.
One of the reasons Lieberman was chosen is because the sexually hung-up, religious fundamentalist hypocrite jumped in bed with the Republicans and openly condemned Clinton for getting a little head on the side. The fact that Monica Lewinsky felt a patriotic need to serve her president must have really disturbed Lieberman psychologically. If he was so titillated about it he should have just kept his mouth shut and asked Hadassah to open hers.
It was apparently thought by the idiots in charge of advising Gore (I heard it was Karenna's choice) that choosing Lieberman would help distance Gore from Clinton's evil act and the ire of the hypocritical, fellatio envious Christians who condemned Clinton. It was a colossal mistake added to a pile of others like not aggressively defanging the gun control issue and making the environment an additional centerpiece of his campaign.
But in Ned Lamont's challenge http://www.blogger.com/ there is a momentum that cannot be denied. It has become a cause c`el`ebre for the progressives. Moveon.org, David Sirota, Markos the Greek and every high profile progressive out there wants to insure the only future for Lieberman is as a whoring lobbyist for insurance and big pharmaceuticals.
This challenge is being carefully and nervously watched by all the hill Democrats whose loyalty is to their membership in the DC Order of Perpetual Reelection and Corporate Servitude. They can't believe the party peasants are not heeling to, are acting rebellious and are threatening to make their own choices. Where's the respect for corrupt elitist power? Where's the fawning and acquiescence to the incompetent party leadership?
Those frustrated progressives who point out that we can't assemble more than 20 people locally to voice dissent have a valid concern. Where's the passion?
I guess it takes a major asshole like Lieberman to stir it up.
Gary
But it is never wrong to challenge members of our own party and campaign for an agenda that the majority can support. In almost every case it is better to challenge from within the party. Challenging as a third party, independent candidate carries risk. If their is a strong major party challenger and a third party candidate reaches enough momentum the third party candidate can siphon off enough votes to throw the election to the major party challenger.
So, it is important that any challenger know when to pull in their horns and free up their supporters when it becomes obvious their continued effort would hand the seat to the evil empire. Nader is a prime example of what can happen "when keeping it real goes wrong" as Dave Chappell has pointed out.
On the other hand, Ned Lamont in Connecticut is a good example of when enough is enough and a full out challenge to Joe Lieberman, an established Republican Lite Democrat, is the only recourse. But in Ned's case he is challenging in the Democratic primary which was the right choice and is proving much more effective than a third party challenge.
There comes a point when accepting someone who claims to be a Democrat but who spreads the propaganda, does the bidding and sings the praises of the opposing party and it's corporate masters is no longer conscionable. Lieberman was a Republican Lite weasel when Al Gore selected him for a running mate in 2000 and it didn't help Al Gore's candidacy at all. In fact it very likely hurt Gore. In addition to Joe's weasel status, let's face it, there are many so-called Christians, both Democrat and Republican who would never vote for a Jewish candidate, call it anti-Semitic or whatever you choose, it's a fact.
One of the reasons Lieberman was chosen is because the sexually hung-up, religious fundamentalist hypocrite jumped in bed with the Republicans and openly condemned Clinton for getting a little head on the side. The fact that Monica Lewinsky felt a patriotic need to serve her president must have really disturbed Lieberman psychologically. If he was so titillated about it he should have just kept his mouth shut and asked Hadassah to open hers.
It was apparently thought by the idiots in charge of advising Gore (I heard it was Karenna's choice) that choosing Lieberman would help distance Gore from Clinton's evil act and the ire of the hypocritical, fellatio envious Christians who condemned Clinton. It was a colossal mistake added to a pile of others like not aggressively defanging the gun control issue and making the environment an additional centerpiece of his campaign.
But in Ned Lamont's challenge http://www.blogger.com/ there is a momentum that cannot be denied. It has become a cause c`el`ebre for the progressives. Moveon.org, David Sirota, Markos the Greek and every high profile progressive out there wants to insure the only future for Lieberman is as a whoring lobbyist for insurance and big pharmaceuticals.
This challenge is being carefully and nervously watched by all the hill Democrats whose loyalty is to their membership in the DC Order of Perpetual Reelection and Corporate Servitude. They can't believe the party peasants are not heeling to, are acting rebellious and are threatening to make their own choices. Where's the respect for corrupt elitist power? Where's the fawning and acquiescence to the incompetent party leadership?
Those frustrated progressives who point out that we can't assemble more than 20 people locally to voice dissent have a valid concern. Where's the passion?
I guess it takes a major asshole like Lieberman to stir it up.
Gary
Monday, July 03, 2006
Those Crazy Americans
I recently learned of a distant relative who led a somewhat checkered life, often in trouble with the law, taking advantage of relatives by bleeding them for money, always with a promise to pay them back but never doing it. A deadbeat who was always scamming people and never paying his bills, he was lazy and irresponsible. He bounced from job to job, married and divorced at least twice he fathered a number of children. A drain on society and government social systems, he has caused pain and suffering to his family and those whose paths he crossed. Having served jail time himself, I learned that he has one son who has been in prison and another who is now in prison and will be there "for a long, long time", I have no idea what for. I don't know about his other four children but one can only imagine. It is well known that there is a cycle of anti-social behavior that is spawned and spreads from one generation to another, the offspring of succeeding generations locked in a cycle that repeats and worsens as it is concentrated by other participants who add their own anti-social genetic makeup to the web.
This man I refer to above apparently hates blacks, Mexicans and essentially all foreigners, and is now is growing old, claims to have a fatal disease, is poor and without friends and blames others for his misery. He considers himself a patriotic American and supports George W Bush.
There are other irresponsible people I know of who have their stories. They are all equally bigoted and quick to blame others for their troubles. Most have a history of financial problems, wildly spending themselves into debt, addicted to instant gratification, they always have someone they blame for their predicament. Some have fallen victim to drugs, some the illegal kind and some the legally prescribed kind that they lean on and pass around to each other like candy.
Some of these are quick to declare themselves victims of one disease or another and keep switching doctors until they find one willing to treat them for whatever disease they can imagine the symptoms for and claim they obviously have. To these people they believe there must be pills available that will correct all their problems and make their lives happy and fulfilling if the doctors will only prescribe them and they take enough of them. They never consider it might be personal choices causing their problems. They don't seem to understand the concept of taking responsiblity for their actions.
When confronted with their irresponsible and sometimes criminal behavior they claim they couldn't help themselves, that they are bi-polar (the designer term for yesterday's manic depressive) or some other psychological illness as an excuse they think should let them off the hook for anti-social or illegal behavior - which is the equivalent to the catch-all absolvent, "the devil made me do it".
They are quick to ask for pills and are always looking for an outside fix to an internal problem. They are also quick to blame others for their behavior as if they have no control over themselves.
Many of these people are also severely overweight from gorging themselves on unhealthy food and driving up the likelihood of health problems at an early age. Some rely heavily on alcohol getting drunk every evening or binge drinking every other day or so. Not all, but a lot of these people are also heavy smokers.
I had a gay cousin who drank a six pack of beer every afternoon/evening before going to bed half drunk. Also a heavy smoker (two packs a day), after years of this behavior he apparently couldn't understand why he developed severe health problems and became miserably ill and debilitated. After suffering escalating health problems for two or three years he died at age 66, angry, depressed, feeling cheated and resentful of others who had so far escaped his fate.
Although I am a liberal progressive and was one of his few close friends who accepted him and loved him, he was unexplainably a big George Bush supporter. He was gay, was not wealthy, relied solely on Social Security and Medicare, and did not benefit in anyway from his support of Bush - yet he apparently held nothing but disdain for all other liberal Democrats - except for me and my wife. Go figure that one!
I'm not sure how to explain this but in almost every case, the people I refer to above as examples represent real people I know of and, as in the case of my cousin, are people who are avid supporters of George Bush and the Republican Party.
Yes, these same people, who all have low income and lean on social programs like Medicare and Medicaid for their healthcare and their drugs, are big Bush supporters. Bush, who proposes to end these programs or limit their effectiveness.
These people who typically have nothing but social security income for support when they can no longer work, throw their support to the man and the political party who would do away with the Social Security program because it's an unfair burden on the wealthy.
These same people who so frequently relied on the bankruptcy court to erase their reckless and irresponsible debt, worship and give their loyal support to the man and the party who changed the law to make it nearly impossible to file bankruptcy no matter what the cause.
And those like my cousin who are gay yet give their allegiance and respect to a president and a party who denounce gays as a threat to society, as sexual perverts, and who want to limit their participation in our society and refuse them equal rights under the law. That confounds me.
These are all apparently proud Americans who are so confused they are siding with and supporting the very people who hold them in disdain, who are denouncing them, limiting their rights and have targeted them for oppression.
No wonder other cultures refer to us as "those crazy Americans."
This man I refer to above apparently hates blacks, Mexicans and essentially all foreigners, and is now is growing old, claims to have a fatal disease, is poor and without friends and blames others for his misery. He considers himself a patriotic American and supports George W Bush.
There are other irresponsible people I know of who have their stories. They are all equally bigoted and quick to blame others for their troubles. Most have a history of financial problems, wildly spending themselves into debt, addicted to instant gratification, they always have someone they blame for their predicament. Some have fallen victim to drugs, some the illegal kind and some the legally prescribed kind that they lean on and pass around to each other like candy.
Some of these are quick to declare themselves victims of one disease or another and keep switching doctors until they find one willing to treat them for whatever disease they can imagine the symptoms for and claim they obviously have. To these people they believe there must be pills available that will correct all their problems and make their lives happy and fulfilling if the doctors will only prescribe them and they take enough of them. They never consider it might be personal choices causing their problems. They don't seem to understand the concept of taking responsiblity for their actions.
When confronted with their irresponsible and sometimes criminal behavior they claim they couldn't help themselves, that they are bi-polar (the designer term for yesterday's manic depressive) or some other psychological illness as an excuse they think should let them off the hook for anti-social or illegal behavior - which is the equivalent to the catch-all absolvent, "the devil made me do it".
They are quick to ask for pills and are always looking for an outside fix to an internal problem. They are also quick to blame others for their behavior as if they have no control over themselves.
Many of these people are also severely overweight from gorging themselves on unhealthy food and driving up the likelihood of health problems at an early age. Some rely heavily on alcohol getting drunk every evening or binge drinking every other day or so. Not all, but a lot of these people are also heavy smokers.
I had a gay cousin who drank a six pack of beer every afternoon/evening before going to bed half drunk. Also a heavy smoker (two packs a day), after years of this behavior he apparently couldn't understand why he developed severe health problems and became miserably ill and debilitated. After suffering escalating health problems for two or three years he died at age 66, angry, depressed, feeling cheated and resentful of others who had so far escaped his fate.
Although I am a liberal progressive and was one of his few close friends who accepted him and loved him, he was unexplainably a big George Bush supporter. He was gay, was not wealthy, relied solely on Social Security and Medicare, and did not benefit in anyway from his support of Bush - yet he apparently held nothing but disdain for all other liberal Democrats - except for me and my wife. Go figure that one!
I'm not sure how to explain this but in almost every case, the people I refer to above as examples represent real people I know of and, as in the case of my cousin, are people who are avid supporters of George Bush and the Republican Party.
Yes, these same people, who all have low income and lean on social programs like Medicare and Medicaid for their healthcare and their drugs, are big Bush supporters. Bush, who proposes to end these programs or limit their effectiveness.
These people who typically have nothing but social security income for support when they can no longer work, throw their support to the man and the political party who would do away with the Social Security program because it's an unfair burden on the wealthy.
These same people who so frequently relied on the bankruptcy court to erase their reckless and irresponsible debt, worship and give their loyal support to the man and the party who changed the law to make it nearly impossible to file bankruptcy no matter what the cause.
And those like my cousin who are gay yet give their allegiance and respect to a president and a party who denounce gays as a threat to society, as sexual perverts, and who want to limit their participation in our society and refuse them equal rights under the law. That confounds me.
These are all apparently proud Americans who are so confused they are siding with and supporting the very people who hold them in disdain, who are denouncing them, limiting their rights and have targeted them for oppression.
No wonder other cultures refer to us as "those crazy Americans."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)