America the Hated

Yea we get it the Middle East hates us, Muslims hate us. Yeah, yeah we suck.

Strange thing is during the Arab Spring protests America was loved by the protesters then 18 months later America is hated and all this over a film that was at the time virtually unknown in America. I guess people in the Middle East and Africa are used to living in countries where the government control film making so of course they think the US Government must have given the okay of the making of the film. So much for their school’s education of World Government courses.

So let’s see, an anti-Muslim film creates in the Middle East and Africa anti-American protests, attacks on American embassies and the murder of 4 Americans including a US Ambassador which none of these 4 Americans had anything to do with the film. Yet in America with the attack of US embassies, the murder of 4 Americans including a US Ambassador everyone just goes on with their day. Including our President who went to a fund raiser and a had campaign speech that opens with “So I wanted to begin tonight by just saying a few words about a tough day that we had today”. Tough day? Attack of an embassy and the murder of 4 innocent Americans including an Ambassador is just a “tough day”. Wow.

There was a time which the murder of Ambassador could be considered an act of war, particularly if hosting country doesn’t stop it or bring the perpetrators to justice. Question is are Muslim extremist behind some of these attacks either overtly or covertly and using the anti-Muslim film to flame the fire.  No doubt that many of these countries have some kind of knowledge of the groups that are fanning the flames and making plans. I know many of these countries are now trying to protect our embassies and gently bring an end to the protest, but I believe it’s not because they like America but they like America’s money. 

Perhaps it’s time to close our embassies in those countries that hate us and kick out ambassadors and diplomats from counties that hate us. Cut off financial aid to those countries and even revoke visas. I’m not saying that we go to the extent of Ron Paul and becoming isolationist. All the money that we sink into countries that hate us could go to paying down our deficit, rebuilding our economy or provide aid to countries that want our friendship. Let Russia and China support those countries that hate us and see how long until the Muslim extremist turn on them.       

As for oil, we need to buy from Canada and look for oil within our own boarders and become the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We need to continue to work on alternative energy and fuel efficiently.

Maybe it’s time that America to take care of its own domestic issues and deficit and be more supportive of its true friends and allies in the world. 

UR

Alligator posted a comment and I was going to simple reply but as I thought about I thought Gator’s comment is too good to let be lost in comments.

Gator said,

I have to cut down on the amount of news I watch or I get depressed. Things are getting wilder with people in general. Folks I live and work around seem to be ratcheting up in "drama" in their lives. I have the sense that this really isn't the country I grew up in...we've slipped from our moorings that much.

July 23, 2012 6:51 AM

I have to agree this isn't the country I was raised up in. It does seem to be something wrong with the world today.

From a song called ‘Living on the Edge’

“There's somethin' wrong with the world today
I don't know what it is
Something's wrong with our eyes

We're seeing things in a different way
And God knows it ain't His
It sure ain't no surprise

There's somethin' wrong with the world today
The light bulb's gettin' dim
There's meltdown in the sky”

I see more self-center over reactionary aggressive behavior today than I saw 10 years ago. Everyone seems to have a major personal crisis.

What ever happen to being stoic?

I understand why Gator thinks the news is depressing. News reporting is based more on feelings than facts. This may seem cruel to say but feelings aren't facts. This also applies to peoples personal lives as well.

Thing are different today for sure. I wonder how much it has to do with reality TV.

It just seems people are lonelier today even if they have 1000 friends on Facebook. It seems a lot of people like to talk but no one likes to listen. I’ve listen to people complain about the same “crisis” over and over again and when you explain how to handle it they won’t do it. They just want to complain about it as if their crisis gives them some sense of wroth or importance.

When I have a personal crisis or problem I tend to say the Serenity Prayer:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

UR

Native Americans Still Fighting Poverty and Addiction

The following are rambling thoughts regarding a serious subject and are based on my limited understanding of Native American life and culture. I by no means consider myself an expert so I could have some things wrong and need to be corrected. I just want to note that not all reservations are in bad shape some have made great strides to combat poverty and substance abuse. It does seem the more remote a tribe’s reservation is the more social and economic problems they seem to have.

“Oglala Sioux Tribe sues Whiteclay stores, beer makers, distributors” Whiteclay is a small town with that boarder the Pine Ridge Reservation. Whiteclay has four beer stores and even though the population is like 14 people +/-the beer stores sell like 4 or 5 million beers per year which is like 11,000 to 14,000 beers a day. Because of alcohol reservations such as Pine Ridge have high incidents of violence, domestic violence, rape, health problems and fetal alcohol syndrome to name a few.

Now several reservations have issue with alcohol, drugs and crime but it seems that Northern Plains reservations tend to higher amounts of it which is due to that they tend to be more remote and impoverished. Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux Tribe Reservation has about 40,000 members living on the Reservation and have an 80% unemployment rate and according to their law suit they claim that 85% of their members are affected by alcoholism. The last I heard alcohol was banned on the Reservation and I think that includes even consuming alcohol on the Reservation is illegal. In a NY Times article “Brutal Crimes Grip an Indian Reservation” Feb 2, 2012 discussed alcohol, violence and crime issues associated with the Wind River Reservation home of Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone tribes in Wyoming and even with two casinos the still have 80% unemployment and issues with poverty, addiction and crime.

Alcohol entered Native American life by Europeans especially through fur traders. Many young adult natives typically ran the fur trade for their tribes or at least for their own interest with European. Euro/white fur traders found if they provided alcohol (which typically was partially water downed) before trading with Indians, at certain periods in time it was illegal to trade alcohol for furs but traders could give them alcohol before or after trading which in many case after Indians got a taste before trading commenced they ended up more interested in getting more alcohol which they would get after trading was done and usually it was even more watered downed. Tribes before reservation life had the culture/spiritual safeguards to keep alcohol from becoming an overall problem in tribal society even though they did have cases of domestic violence becoming the first sign of troubles to come. In European culture the abuse of alcohol was seen as lack of moral character if not the Devil itself but in most Native culture the drinker was never blamed for their action because they were under influence of alcohol, so it was alcohol’s fault not the individual.

There are many different types of tribes, east and west Coastal tribes, river and Great Lake tribes, Northeast and Southeast Woodland tribes, Southwestern semi-nomadic and agrarian tribes, Southern Plains nomadic tribes, Northern Plains nomadic tribes and a few others types. Coastal, river, Great Lake, certain Southwestern and Woodland tribes tend to less nomadic and had more agrarian capabilities compare to their nomadic Plains cousins. Nomadic Plains tribes did have some capabilities of raising food but it was more like gardening and not farming. Nomadic Plains tribes tend to be more hunter/gathers.

When the government put Indians tribes on reservations it really changed their lives. Government geniuses at the time thought that Northern Plains tribes such as the Sioux and Arapahoe as well as Southern Plains tribes like the Comanche who tend to be nomadic/hunter/gatherer/horse cultures could become farmers. Farming was difficult in most cases for Northern Plains tribes mainly due to the land they were usually placed on as well as other problems. So they ended up dependent on the government to feed them which also was not as simple as it sounds, mainly due to scrupulous government Indian Agents who tend to sell a portion of a tribe’s supplies on the black-market and in some cases supplies that did reach tribes maybe spoiled. During the American Civil War the Federal Government would redirect money that was owed to Indians on reservations to the Union war efforts. In one such case when annuities as per treaty agreement was held up that was due to the Dakota Sioux and local and Federal traders refused to extend credit to the Sioux so that they could get food and add in that the Sioux were starving ended up leading to the Sioux uprising of 1862. The government also banned many tribal traditions and rites which was the heart of their society and identity.

Before Indians were placed on a reservation they lived in tribal civilization which a lot people don’t understand. Everyone in a tribe had a job to do and the tribe’s survival dependent on it. Each family had to take care of themselves but also helping others in the tribe. There were all kinds of jobs that the able body adults did such as utilitarian jobs of getting, preparing and cooking food, gathering wood, making tools, weapons and weaving baskets and making clothes. Also military/security aka Warrior class which warriors would patrol tribe’s territory, yes Indians were territorial and claimed certain land as theirs own and even took land from other tribes if they’re were strong enough to do so. Then there were the spiritual jobs such as the Holy Man and Medicine Man. Then the artistic jobs such musicians, story tellers and dancers. Plus the tribal leadership and council such as the Tribe’s Chief, sub-chiefs, clan heads and elders. As soon as a child could walk they were being trained to work for the family and the tribe. Teenagers would be allow to do nothing, boys would be out on the hunt or practicing hunting or fighting skills or they would be put out on watch for the tribe or taking care and keeping watching on the horses or out stealing horses from rival tribes. Typically a boy will eventually replace his father whether it is warrior or Holy Man if they have the aptitude to do so. Teenage girls would babysit; help gather, preparing and cooking food and water. They would learn to make baskets and clothes. They might even be put on watch duty of the horses. Agrarian tribes of course had farming, herding and fishing add to the jobs to do. Only the ill or the very old were excused from working. The lame and very old still found something to do even if it’s babysitting, tribal or family history education. Tribes and members were self-sufficient, interdependent and communal. The number one job the adults and elders had was teaching the next generation about the tribe, tradition, rituals and how to survive.

So many Indians particularly the Plains/nomadic tribes who sat on a reservation with nothing to do but wait for their government allotments created the ideal environment for alcoholism which has its connection with abuse and violence then in modern time the addition to of drug addiction.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, January 19, 2007

• In 2002-2005, American Indians and Alaska Natives were more likely than members of other racial groups to have a past year alcohol use disorder (10.7 vs. 7.6 percent)
• In 2002-2005, American Indians and Alaska Natives were more likely than members of other racial groups to have a past year illicit drug use disorder (5.0 vs. 2.9 percent)
• Rates of past year marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogen use disorders were higher among American Indians and Alaska Natives than among members of other racial groups

Yet, the National Institutes of Health theorize that some Indians may "drink rapidly to induce an altered state of consciousness, a practice congruent with some Native American practices," which I don’t think is the reason for most Indians but maybe a few but I could see most using alcohol to alter their state of consciousness due to depression and hopelessness. But could it also be a predisposition to alcoholism/addiction or that Indians lack the large amount of enzymes in the stomach that would be need break down alcohol more efficiently.

I’m sure there are Native Americans who may drink responsibly but there are many who are not so lucky. Now the few Indians I knew didn’t bother with alcohol or drugs. I have no doubt that poverty and high unemployment have a part to play in this. Many Reservations have high unemployment even those with casinos. In a Forbes article “Why Are Indian Reservations So Poor? A Look At The Bottom 1%” it points out that many Indians on reservation can’t take out loans against the homes because they don’t own the property that the land it sits on because most reservations land is communally owned. This of course makes it difficult for these Natives Americans to consolidate debt with a home loan or even get a loan to possibly start a business or by a reliable car to even get to a job. In the Forbes article when it comes to business Bill Yellowtail, a former Crow official and a former Montana state senator says this:

“Our people don’t understand business. After 10 or 15 generations of not being involved in business, they’ve lost their feel for it. Capitalism is considered threatening to our identity, our traditions. Successful entrepreneurs are considered sell-outs, they’re ostracized. We have to promote the dignity of self-sufficiency among Indians. Instead we have a culture of malaise: ‘The tribe will take care of us.’ We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.”

But Yellowtail believes that the situation is improving. He says there are more entrepreneurs than 20 years ago as networks of Native American business people have sprung up in Montana and elsewhere. “We have to start with micro loans, encouraging small businesses. Then we have to make it okay to leave the reservation because the most successful are going to want to branch out. Entrepreneurs are going to have to stick their neck out, be a role model. We Indians are going to have to do it.”

There will be no easy answers especially during these times where most American are dealing with unemployment and economic hard times. But this can also be seen as a lesson about what could happen to a society that becomes dependent on the government to take care of them. Several reservations have to deal with high levels of unemployment, alcohol/drug abuse, violence, unable to get loans, poor education and high dropout rates. Are not these problems also seen in high welfare communities and government housing communities in America?

I know the alcohol/drug problem seems pretty bleak for Indians but there are many Indians who are getting sober who are now helping other tribe members and tribes are now putting focus on their youth and encouraging them to pursue education, sport and the arts as well as connecting with tribal traditions and langauge. But this still doesn’t resolve the immedite issues of high unemployment and poverty but maybe this next generation of warriors will win these battles for their tribes.

UR

Immigrant or Citizen

Mitt Romney continues to say his father was an immigrant.

Yes George W. Romney Mitt’s father was born in Mexico in 1907 but George was born to American citizens. George’s parents Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt were from Utah but they lived in a Mormon colony in Mexico. Actually you could say Mitt’s grandparents were immigrants to Mexico.

George age 5 and his parents had to flee Mexico due to the Mexican Revolution and they left everything behind and came back to America in 1912 with very little, but they were American citizens.

So in my opinion Mitt’s father George came to America not as an immigrant but as a citizen.

In 1968 George Romney ran for President if George was a true immigrant he wouldn't be allowed to run for President.

So maybe Mitt is stretching it a bit?

UR

Master Debaters

So another GOP primary debate is done or what I call Republican Playoffs.

I must say not thrilled with anyone except maybe Newt Gingrich. It’s funny that at the end of most of the debates commentator will say that Gingrich is the smartest one in the room but then go on and talk about whether Perry or Romney and now Cain and which one won or lost the debate. But if Newt is the smartest in the room shouldn’t that mean he won?

Then again during these debates isn’t really about the best debater but about putting on a show and have everyone go after the front runner it almost like a watching TV wrestling Battle Royal match. These debates should be called Debate Entertainment.

During these debates the moderators tend to focus on the front runners and basically leave the other contenders out. Instead of asking one question and allow everyone equal time to give their answers, they end up going off track because someone answers critiques one of the others then they give the person time to respond then the back and forth between goes on and the moderator ends up changing topics and the other people on stage doesn’t get a chance to answer the original question. Here is an idea let everyone answer the question then go back and people a chance to respond.

All I know is Newt seems to be the only adult at these debates and is considered the smartest one in the room.

So as you can tell I lean towards Newt but can Newt win the Republican nomination? Well that’s a tough one due to some of his baggage and the far right being based on idealism and not realism when it comes to their purity standards. But regardless of who is nominated the real question is who can win the Presidency?

No one can win with their base only. Yes each candidate need their base to stay loyal but to win you need to keep party moderates with you and you need as many Independence to come to your side. So as for electoral votes you need swing states and swing states aka purple states tend to have a majority of moderates or near equal Repubs and Dems and Indies. Which tends to mean though aren’t far right or far left when it comes to policies.

I’m sorry I don’t believe a far right can win against President Obama. President Obama make no mistake is a far left politician who tries to pretend to a center left politician. President Obama will have his far right support but if a Republican that is center right on social policies and a fiscal conservative with plans to change this country’s economic and job crisis around and can keep the base and the party moderates together plus get the majority of Independents to come over to the Republican side and if a Republican candidate even get a portion of moderate Dems like the Blue Dog Dems there would be no way for President Obama to win.

So wouldn’t one think that the smartest person in the room be the one to run against President Obama? Even though Newt probably won’t be the Republican nominee I just can help but think about how great it would be to see Newt debating President Obama.

UR

The Ghost Dance

My commentary is below the video.



The Ghost Dance was a “round dance” that was part of a religious movement in 1890 that was started by a Paiute Indian named Wovoka also known as Jack Wilson, a name he adopted after his father died and was taken in and raised by a rancher by the name of David Wilson as a teen and worked there well into adulthood. Now Wovoka’s father was a medicine man and Wovoka was learning from his father but Wovoka was also known for having visions. Wovoka was well versed in Paiute traditions and religion but while being part of the Wilson family he was also taught the Bible and Christianity.

In January 1889 Wovoka had a vision during a solar eclipse. Wovoka’s vision showed the return or resurrection of the Paiute dead and that the white man and all that he has brought and done to the Indians would vanish and that the Indians and buffalo return to the days before the whites. Wovoka believed this could only be done by doing the Ghost Dance and living a righteous life. Wovoka was a pacifist and encouraged his follower not to harm the whites and continue to work with them. I believe Wovoka incorporated Indian beliefs with Christianity and some have said even as far as that Jesus would return as a Indian to bring about Wovoka’s vision. Wovoka’s vision and Ghost Dance began to gain attention from other western tribes who then sent representatives to meet and learn from Wovoka.

Now these tribal representatives returned to their tribes after learning the Ghost Dance, songs and prayers. Many tribes made changes to the song, prayers and even the dance so to fit into their traditions. But it was the Lakota Sioux who went further. Many Lakota by this time were highly resentful to the wasicu, which in Lakota means non-Indian and not “fat taker” which is “wasin icu” but wasicu overtime did become a derogatory and is associate with “greedy” or “untrustworthy”. Lakota were also resentful to the US Government and corrupt Indian Agents. We need to remember this 1890 and Custer’s last stand at the Battle of the Little Bighorn which the Sioux killed Custer and massacred the US 7th Calvary was only about 13 or 14 years earlier. So the Sioux felt that they were still paying for that. Sioux were eventually forced on to the reservation due to lost of their main food resource the buffalo which were hunted nearly to extinction for their hides and bones by whites with the encouragement of the Government so that the Plains Indians would lack their number one resource and the cattle ranchers how want the buffalo and Indians gone for their land to raise cattle.

By February 1890 the Federal Government decided to break it treaty with the Sioux and breakup their reservation into smaller reservation and divided up the Great Sioux Nation. Even thought the Government tried to teach the Sioux to farm they did take into account the difficulty to farm in the Dakotas at that time. So at the end of the growing season of 1890 with poor precipitation and extreme heat the Sioux were unable to have any kind of substantial harvest. But the Government simply accused the Sioux of being lazy and they cut the Sioux’s supply rations and now that the Lakota didn’t even have the buffalo anymore they began to fear that they might starve. So the Lakota saw the Ghost Dance as a last hope but where Wovoka want a peaceful conversion the Lakota saw it differently.

The Lakota took the Ghost Dance and created specially designed shirts which were said to give the wearer special powers and protects the wearer from bullets. The Lakota reservation’s Indian Agents became increasingly worried about this movement and those who wore special magic shirts that they thought were bullet proof on the reservation and two great tragedies came to pass. The first was that the Sioux reservation Indian Agent suspected the great Sitting Bull was behind it or may soon join it. On December 15, 1890 the Indian Agent sent a group of Indian police to take him to custody but as they were trying to arrest Sitting Bull’s supporters began to gather around and when Sitting Bull began to resist and member of supporters raised his gun and shot the head officer who in turned shot Sitting Bull in the chest then one of the Indian police shot Sitting Bull in the head. By the end of the skirmish 9 Indian police and 7 of Sitting Bull’s supporters were dead as well as the great Sitting Bull. For trivia purpose apparently in 1983 Sitting Bull was baptized into the Roman Catholic faith.

The second tragedy of course was December 29, 1890 the Massacre at Wounded Knee. Of course story about what happen on the day depends on which side is telling it. This is what we do know. 200 members of Sitting Bull’s band left the Standing Rock Agency where Sitting Bull lived after hearing the death of Sitting Bull and fearing reprisal went and joined Spotted Elk (aka Bigfoot) at Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. Then on December 23rd Spotted Elk and his band along with 38 members of Sitting Bull’s band left for the Pine Ridge Reservation to seek protection under Red Cloud. But on December 28 they were intercepted by the 7th Calvary and Spotted Elk and his 350 followers were taken to Wounded Knee Creek which the rest of the 7th Calvary joined up bring the 7th’s numbers to 500 and the Indians’ at 350 with 120 of those being women and children. Well the US Calvary began disarming the Indians and here is different stories about who shot first happened. But in the end over 150 Indians were killed out of that over 60 were women and children and as for the Calvary over 30 were killed some speculate that many of that 30 were from friendly fire due to crossfire.

The Ghost Dance seemed to vanish after Wounded Knee. Perhaps it been turned into another round dance. I only heard of only one tribe still doing it. Interesting the Navaho never accepted the Ghost Dance due to cultural fear of ghost and dead. Even today Navaho Indian Police will get calls by elder Navaho and/or traditionalist if they even think they hear something they believe is a ghost and the Indian Police will come out and investigate. As Wovoka he passed way in 1932.

I thought this interesting regarding Ghost Dance Photos
Reading Photographs:
Imaging and Imagining the Ghost Dance: James Mooney's Illustrations and Photographs, 1891-1893
Thomas W. Kavanagh


UR

Am I Old?

When does one realize that they are getting old?



Chorus:

"They said all
Teenagers scare
The living shit out of me
They could care less
As long as someone'll bleed
So darken your clothes
Or strike a violent pose
Maybe they'll leave you alone
But not me"

The lead singer who wrote this song after being on a subway train with a group high school age teenagers. He said,

"That was the first time I felt old...I was nervous and I was a target. I felt like I had become a parent figure or part of the problem."

The lead singer at the time was probably around 28 years old.

It suck when you begin to realize you’re not a teenager or even 25 anymore even though in you’re mind you think you still are. But one day you look around and see young people looking at you as if you’re old. I know I could go to a Alice Cooper concert or a Rob Zombie concert and there will be young people looking at me like what you doing here old man. Even though I was listening to Alice before they were born and Alice is 63yrs old or that Rob Zombie and I are the same age. Fact is that if I sat down with Alice or Rob I would have more in common with them than some 20 year old.

The song “Teenagers” to me is about the violence in the youth culture and that adults are to blame due to their lack of involvement in teenagers life and that we should be more involve in their lives even if they don’t want it. But involved not has either a policeman or as a best friend but as a parent or as a mentor. To me a parent’s job is to teach your child how to survive with out them, to understand the rules of one society and prepare them to be able to cope in the real world. To learn from mistakes and if they fall to always get back up.

When I was a school age teenage in the late 70’s and early 80’s I knew kids who had parents with guns and they would have never touch them nor would have brought them to school no matter how angry they were. We did carry pocketknives to school, which could be confiscated if a teacher saw you playing with it but usually you were warned to put it away. If it was confiscated you could get it back at the end of the day. Fights were rare and usually quick and weaponless. Most of the time students would jump in and break it up before a teacher got there. Reason is because their fellow students would break it up so the two who are fighting wouldn’t get in trouble. Teacher had no problem jumping in the middle of a fight because typically a student would not dare hit a teacher because they were taught at home and school to respect their elders. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure a few got hit in the heat of things.

But today it seems when a fight breaks out the surrounding students standby with their cell phone videoing it for the Internet. I too think adults are to blame because we are the one making the rules and produce media programs showing insane drunken behavior of reality TV. I believe children and teenager needs rules and boundaries that will allow them express themselves and be themselves but not violate others rights or peace. But adult need to lead by example especially by parents and teachers. It seems today there are parents and teachers who don't think they have an obligation to be a moral role model without regard of how it's going to influence young minds. Truth is those adults are lazy and self-centered.

I do understand how teenagers can scare me. We fear what we don’t understand and where I once could relate now I wonder who are these people. I’m sure all the things I felt then is about the same as today teenagers do. Most teenagers tend to be idealist because the lack experience in being in the real world unless they are in a very poor gang control area then its just a form hopeless survialism. Maybe what happens is as we get older and go through life we begin understand more and life becomes less fearful and more secure in our own skin and we begin to understand our parents better. As I say to my young adult kids, just because you’re an adult it doesn’t mean you’re grown up. The day you grow up is the day you realize you have responsibilities. Responsibilities to work, to family, to friends, to community and even responsibilities you don’t even want to have but you do. That’s the day you grow up whether it be at 20 or 50 and I know some who are in their 40s and still haven’t grown up because the won’t take responsibility and I’ve know 16yr old who had to grow up because they had to become responsible to support their mother and siblings after their father died.

But the real question is; have we let an untrained dog off the leash? Many “parents” today will allow a minor do things that in my day we couldn’t do until you were over 18 and living in your own place unless your parents were old hippies even then they would draw a line. Will young people today be able to grow up?

I think it’s important to be young at heart but be real about it. There just some things our aging bodies can do anymore. I use to be able to stay up all night and then go to work but oddly it just doesn’t seem to be the smart thing to do anymore.

UR

Anarchy in the UK

Hmmm, such nice young ladies.

Apparently what started out as a protest about a police shooting is now about an anarchy, that they can do what they want. But really this is all about stealing and vandalism.

You know what I’ve heard this before.



Of course this rioting is destroying local businesses and these teenagers and twentysomethings have just put more people on the government dole. Not to mention the people who are now homeless because of the fires. Now the government will have to support more people.

Nice going morons. That’s right you’re not anarchist or protesters you’re morons or thieves.

But then this is what happens when the people become to dependent on the government to take care of them.

The problem with socialism it depends on taxing the workers so the worker can have benefits. So if enough people don't work and not pay into the system the system will fail. So then if there are jobs and young people of that country choose not to work for what ever reason then the government will bring in foreign workers to work so that they can pay into the system to support the non-working with healthcare and financial aid which use to be mostly the retired, elderly, disabled, sick, homeless, unemployed but now having the foreign workers paying the taxes and if young people do not enter the work force to pay their fair share you have more people needing the system that can’t get enough worker tax money due to disproportionate amount of workers to non-workers and the government still paying for benefits it can’t afford. And just taxing the rich in socialism will not sustain any country for very long, unless it’ s very small population and of that you have a large population of wealthy and limit immigration into the country.

Socialism today is the people pay taxes to the government for benefits and services. If people don’t pay or pay enough then the government can’t provide.

UR

What the Hell!

Remember a week ago everyone was in a panic that if we did get the debt ceiling increased passed we were going to be downgraded? So after days of name calling along and negotiations and at the eleventh hour our government pass a bipartisan bill that would save us from debt ceiling apocalypse.

Well, what happen? The S&P downgraded us from AAA to AA rating because of our spending and we did cut enough spending in the bill. Our geniuses were able to offer up 2 trillion cut but apparently unaware S&P wanted 4 trillion cut. Oops!

This administration just doesn’t understand. I know President Obama wants European style of socialism but I guess President Obama also wanted European style debt rating as well.

Nice job guys. You know we wouldn’t want a balance budget or anything.

Let this poor simple guy give you in Washington a few suggestions.

1. Balance the budget.

2. Cut spending. Congress and the President could start with taking a 25% cut in pay. Then stop the earmarks, pet project funding and keep cutting everything even office supplies and make Social Security, Medicare and military the last to be looked at for cuts.

3. Flat income tax.

4. A .5% to 1% national sales tax. So we can get taxes from underground economies legal or illegal.

5. Lower the corporate tax to compete with other countries but make it flat tax with no loopholes or extensions.

6. Loosen up on regulation and paperwork that stifle the creation of small business.

7. Get away from banks and get them wanting to loan again.

8. Stop bailing out failed States. They need to learn to budget themselves.

9. Stop funding research studies such as Chinese hookers drinking, penises, pig farts and so on. Look if they can’t get private funding then nobody cares.

10. Maybe get rid of Fanny Mae & Freddy Mac.

I’m sure I could go on and I'm not saying these are good ideas but at least they're something.

Stop the politics and the parties ideologies and begin to represent the country.

UR

Really Mr. President?

July 08, 2011 Remarks by the President on the Monthly Jobs Report

President Obama said,

“I believe that we can make things better. How we respond is up to us. There are a few things that we can and should do, right now, to redouble our efforts on behalf of the American people."

“Let me give you some examples. Right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work after the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of America needs rebuilding. We connect the two by investing in rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure. And we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust.”

Really Mr. President?

The President apparently thinks all construction is the same and all construction workers are the same. Well that’s not true, the men and women in the housing construction not the same as those in commercial construction or infrastructure construction. So how would a guy who installs floor or bath tile be needed on a road, bridge or railway? If you’re going to tile a bridge, well that’s going to be one expensive bridge. Maybe on road jobs we can have carpet installers put down carpets on the roads? Wouldn’t that be special?

Maybe if I put it in a way the President might understand. Take lawyers, you have Criminal Trial Lawyers, Divorce Lawyers, Contract Lawyers, Environmental Lawyers, Corporate Lawyers, Constitutions Lawyers, Bankruptcy Lawyers, and so on. If you are being tried for murder would you want a Criminal Trail Lawyer such as a Criminal Defense Attorney or a Contract Lawyer whose job is to write or read contracts and only court experience is in cases regarding a contract dispute?

So Mr. President we construction workers are not all the same. I'm a little supprised that the President Obama of all people would stereotype.

UR

In Poor Taste

In the poor taste files

In Philadelphia Pa a new tradition has began. It’s called the Zombie Crawl. This is when people dress up as the walking dead or zombies and do a pub crawl or walk from bar to bar.

Now Zombie Crawls or Zombie Walks are not new it’s been going on for a couple years thru out the world. I myself think its pretty cool but what I fine in poor taste is when Philadelphia is having theirs. See many others zombie events happen thru out the year, usually in October because of Halloween.

But Philadelphia’s Zombie event is going to be held on April 24, 2011 which is Easter Sunday. Poster that posted about the event whose screen name is “Dead Meat Walking” posted in the comment section this

“The walk in to celebrate the most famous zombie of them all!”

Ok I get the humor of it. Look I’m no Holy Roller or even a church goer but I don’t think the resurrection of Jesus is the same as the walking dead much less a zombie. I think this is in poor taste. I would have considered it less poor taste if perhaps it was done on the Saturday before Easter Sunday.

If one is not into the religious view of Easter and that the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. Perhaps we can see in another light.

Easter falls around the same time as Spring. In pagan culture spring is celebrated in the sense of rebirth and new life. Today many Christians and Non-Christians will clean out their houses or what is called Spring Cleaning, they will also do yard work like cutting the dead off trees and rake out their gardens so that the can revitalize the soil and plant new seeds and bulbs or new plants . Because spring is the time to start a new.

So why not instead of only doing a physical housecleaning but also a spiritual housecleaning. Giving us a chance to rid ourselves of negatives such as resentments and ridding ourselves of our shortcomings. Perhaps while we rake out the and weed out our gardens so that we can add new soil and nutrients to the ground so we can plant new seeds and plants, we can also rake out our lives and add nutrients and plant new seeds of positivity. Such being less shy or less pushy or maybe taking more walks or actually stopping and appreciating a flower or the night sky. Maybe finishing something you started or actually going out and planting a garden or cleaning your house. Maybe giving up a vice. Making more time for others or making more time for you. Learning something new or making time to teach somebody something new. And yes maybe even go on a zombie walk just maybe not on Easter. Whatever it maybe as long as it’s a positive change that helps to start life a new. In others words be spring and perhaps you may even become resurrected.

UR

Realism of “Taxation without representation” and Voting

So I saw a report about how some areas throughout America are trying to pass laws giving non-citizens of the US voting rights (I believe they are talking about legal non-citizens). Those trying to do this are justifying it on the bases that these non-citizens who are here and trying to obtain citizenship, are working and paying taxes and since they are paying taxes and yet can’t vote then their rights of “No taxation without representation” are being violated. Actually we have some cities and municipalities who have extended the privilege to vote to non-citizen in local election but not in State or Presidential elections.

Well first there is no such right in the US Constitution. “No taxation without representation” was an American political slogan that when back prior to the American Revolution. Even after the American Revolution the idea of “No taxation without representation” remained just an idea not an actual right.

Fact is many American citizens pay taxes without representation. We can only vote regarding to the district in which we live. Many people may live in one place but work in another. Such as someone who may live in a suburbs and works in a city. A city may collect a wage tax from those who work in the city but yet those who live out side the city cannot vote in city election, which could determine an increase in the city wage tax. This is also applies to those who may live in one State and work in a neighboring State. Those who live in another state cannot vote in the state they work in but yet they will have to pay taxes to that state. Unless something changed recently, I believe the residents of Washington D.C. (citizens) have no voting representation in congress but they can vote in Presidential election which only has been enacted since 1961.

Truth is the US Constitution doesn’t even declare voting as a right. It basically outlines the qualification for one to be a voter. Unlike free speech, religion or press and etc, the fact is voting is more of a privilege much like a drivers license. So if you meet the qualification to be a voter then you have the right to have the privilege to vote.

Look when I hear someone has achieved US citizenship and is going to vote I am thrilled to hear it. I don’t even care who they are going to vote for, I am just happy that they as a new American citizen what’s to be part of the process.

So to those who want to use “No taxation without representation” or voting as a right as a justification to give non-citizens the privilege to vote, you’ll have to come up with something better.


UR

“The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley”

Most are more familiar with the standard English version “The best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew” from the poem "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough" by Scotsman Robert Burns in 1785. Jason Levin an Oregon middle school teacher who was willing going to great lengths to crash and bring down the Tea Party Movement quit his teaching job before the school district fired him. School district apparently did an investigation on the teacher but did not release any information.

“Levin, a media lab technology teacher at Conestoga Middle School, drew international attention last spring after creating crashtheteaparty.org. The now defunct site had said it was part of a national movement to "dismantle and demolish the tea party by any nonviolent means necessary."


The site encouraged people to infiltrate the tea party, then misspell protest signs, make wild claims during interviews and perform other public actions that would damage the public's opinion of the tea party.”

Are we sure we are talking about a middle school teacher and not a middle school student?

“In a now deleted post on his "Crash the Tea Party" Web site, he called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers -- among other personal identifying information -- about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies that took place on Thursday, Tax Day.


"Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!" he wrote.”

How old is this guy? So would it be ok Mr. Levin if someone took your personal information and misused it and put you through hell? Of course it’s different, right? Well maybe it’s just me but I see this as immature and self-center act.

“Levin has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible -- anything short of throwing punches.”

Really Mr. Levin, you want to dressing up as Hitler to embarrass the Tea Party? Sir, get a life. You really have nothing better to do with yourself? Are you really that afraid of a group that is basically a Libertarian movement that supports lower taxes and smaller government. Mr. Levin you as a teacher should realize Hitler and the Nazi Party not only was about being anti-Semitic but was Socialist that believed in big government and government control of people. So it’s kind of stupid to be dressed up Hitler and go to a small government and less interference in people’s lives rally, isn’t it? Ah! That’s right Mr. Levin was a teacher for a public school which depends on government funding by tax payers. So big government and taxes is good for them.

When I was in public school many many years ago the teachers weren’t paid much and lucky to a modest pension. I remember that it wasn’t uncommon to see your teacher working as a clerk in a store when school was out for summer break. I liked the majority of my teachers and even then I felt they were underpaid. But when I was in High School I started to asked them why did you become a teacher? Now a couple males teachers said they became teachers to keep from going to Vietnam but they as well as the rest of the male and female teachers said because they love teaching and that they don’t teach because of the money or the benefits or the respect because there isn’t any. But it was because they really love to teach. But I wonder about many teachers today. I’m sure there are those who love teaching but would many of them today be willing to do it if it was 20 plus years ago.

Anyway let’s get back to the Tea Party thing.

“In a recent interview with Talking Points Memo, Levin said of his plans, "Our goal is that whenever a Tea Partier says 'Barack Obama was not born in America,' we're going be right there next to them saying, 'Yeah, in fact he wasn't born on Earth! He's an alien!'"

Mr. Levin seems to have a problem Birthers whom some go to Tea Parties but Mr. Levin what about liberal 9/11 Truthers? Will you going stand up to a Truther as well? Personally I don’t waste my time with either one. Until there is real evidence and not conspiracy theory I have more important things to worry about. Are all Tea Party members Birthers? I doubt it.

Look whackos show up to all political events. They show up liberal events and conservative events and everywhere in between. So will a racist or far right nut show up to a Tea Party? I have no doubt they will, but is the Tea Party sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist? I’m sure many on the left will say yes, and there are certain members of the media and liberal bloggers that have been working hard to find any little thing that they can use to discredit the Tea Party but yet just can’t seem to bring them down. The Washington Times did interview at least three people “whom are black”.

“The Washington Times caught up with several health care bill protesters, all three of whom are black, and asked their thoughts on the allegations regarding the racial epithets.

Bill Owens Jr., a Tea Party Express leader from Las Vegas, said he did not experience or witness any racial hostility.


"I had a chance to be among these people. It's not about pigmentation. You have race issues going on all the time; however, I'm not seeing anything significant from these rallies. It's just not there," he said. "Does a person find a racist once in a while? . . . Sure, you find that anywhere. These people are concerned about the issues of where you stand, not what color you are."

Charlene Freedman, a health care bill protester from New Jersey, has been to Washington four times, since she first attended the 9/12 rally. When asked if she witnessed or heard any racial hostility from the crowd, she said: "Absolutely not . . . just well-wishers. I didn't see color. They didn't see my color. We're just American citizens, and we're here to say, 'Keep America free.' I’ve heard nothing about racism . . . nothing at all."


Jay Jarbo came to the health care protest from Atlanta and explained: "I just want to see them follow the Constitution, and they're not doing that. Anyone that tries to throw around the racial thing, just squash it, because this has nothing to do with race. I haven't heard anyone say anything about race at any one of these events," Mr. Jarbo said. "Honestly, this is the type of thing people bring up to distract from the real issues, and it's always about race in this country, and its always the last card in the deck that everyone plays."

Just to make clear I’m not a Tea Party member but I do agree with some of the things they state that they are for; like lower taxes and smaller government. But I’m a moderate or independent Republican. So Republicans would call me a RINO “Republican In Name Only”, all because I don’t vote straight Republican. But that’s my right as an American.

Mr. Levin should think about this. If some racist right wing loon shows up to a Tea Party gathering spout hateful things but now thanks to Mr. Levin the Tea Party can excuse them as some liberal infiltrator. Oh well, “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley”

UR

Return of the Record Album?

So I was reading this article on CNN.com “Who's still listening to vinyl?” and it took me back. In my life time I’ve seen record albums (LP, 78s & 45s), 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs and now MP3s. Well I haven’t done the MP3 thing yet. I know some twenty something(s) who are now into getting records and enjoy listening to them. Of course to me it would be nostalgic to them it’s “Retro”. Ah getting old.

I remember when records were thought to be replaced by 8 tracks. This how my first record collection started, I got them handed down to me from my older brothers mostly Beatles, Rolling Stones and The Who, but I also got 8 tracks. 8 tracks had a great sound and you could take them with you, if you had an 8 track player in your car or a portable player. You could even select a song by clicking thru tracks if your player had that capability. The draw backs of the 8 track was many times it had to change tracks in the middle of a song and they were kind of cumbersome to carry around and of course if the tape broke. First 8 tracks I bought with my own money I saved from doing chores was an Alice Cooper album.

Then came the cassette, it was smaller than an 8 track but the sound quality was not as good a record or an 8 track but as teenager who cares. It was portable and you could play it anywhere there was a cassette player. Plus you could take a blank tape and copy a record album to it and play it in your car. But again a draw back with a cassette tape was if the tape broke or got tangled up in the player. Probably the biggest problem with cassettes is you couldn’t select a song. You had to either fast forward or rewind and keep hitting play until you find the beginning of a song. First cassette was a Beatle album. Needless to say I had many 8 tracks and cassettes but it was records that favored.

Record LP albums were great. First you had a great sound but what was even better was the covers and sleeves the records came in. They had either photos or cover art and sometime you found a poster or a collectable photo or a gift certificate. I remember how I would slide the record out, put it on the turn table then set the stylus (aka needle) on the record and sit back looking at the album cover as you waited for the song to start. Your eyes fixed on the cover you ears listening to the low hiss and crackles or pops of the grooves; I was just waiting in anticipation of the first note or sound. Then lost in the sounds of the record and lost visually in the cover or the slide out the sleeve which usually had liner notes and read it over and over. I remember I knew an old man who had a record player set up in a laundry room of an apartment building in the apartment complex I grew up in and I would go over and sit with him as we listen to old 78 records. These records were heavier feeling than modern vinyl records and if you drop them they would break. But I would sit there with him listening to old operas, classical, big bands and crooners. To me this was just as magical as listening to my contemporary vinyl records. The great thing was the imaginary journey you take through the music and even the covers of the records. You couldn’t take the music with you. You had to stay in one place, you could only go as far has you could hear it. Oh and my first record album I bought with money I saved was a David Bowie album.

So the draw backs for records was not being able to listen to it on the move but the other draw back was that you wanted to listen to just one song you had to careful place on the right grooves which could be a pain. But you could usually find a 45 record and even cooler was sometimes lucked out and got a good song on the B side. Another problem was your records had two sides and when one side was done you had to go over and flip it over to listen to the rest of the record. And having the same problem with 8 tracks and cassettes what is one going to do?

Well, the answer was the CD. The CD seems to be the answer for uninterrupted play. That was the selling point. Oh yea, and you were saving trees. CD’s were small and come in plastic cases with less paper. Of course later it became bad to have all those plastic cases floating out there and getting thrown away, so then CDs came in hard paper sleeves and then back to plastic cases. Anyway, CDs sound isn’t bad but not quite same as records and you could take it with you and play it on a portable CD played then CD players became fashionable in cars not to mention if you had a disk drive in you computer. You can select song tracks and even select random play. But what I didn’t like about CD’s was that it comes in a case that is like 5” by 5” give or take an inch. Sure it’s convenient but you can barely see the cover and if you open it you either have fold out or a booklet which either way even with young eyes you need a magnifying glass to read it. Unlike the 12” by 12” record album cover. Oh well as disappointed as I was with the demise of records I accepted it and began getting CDs. But so far I have resisted MP3s which to me is nothing but creations of an A.D.D. society. My first CD well not sure those days are little fuzzy but it might have been a best of ELO or Brian Eno or maybe Ramones.

But I am hopeful with an apparently resurgent of the record albums I won’t be the last generation to enjoy the magic that comes with whole package of a vinyl album and the imaginations that is inspired.

A friend the other day told me he heard a report that our future will lack American inventors because today’s youth lack creativity and imagination. I’m sure there more to it than the lack of records but that’s a post for another day.

I may venture deep into the back of my closet and bring out what few records I have left and play them. Oh wait I don’t have a record player anymore. Rats, screwed again!

UR

What were the Founding Fathers Thinking?

Today there is much debate over the meaning of the separation of Church and State and part should religion should play in the government. What were the Founding Father’s view about religion especially Christianity in America. For me to understand the Founding Fathers and the views of separation of Church and State and to what extent religion should play in government, one must understand the politics and religious concepts of Europe in the 1700’s going back to the 1200’s.

The U.S. Constitution has it’s root with the Magna Carta. The original Magna Carta written in the 1215 and original had 63 clauses. This document was between the lowest level of nobility called Barons/Freeman and the King but really had little to do with the majority of the population (about 90% to 95%) known as peasants who were not considered free so this document didn’t apply to them. King John signed under duress, but as soon as rebel forces left London King John renounced it because of a clause (clause 61), which basically made him King in name only. This started a civil war in England. The Pope stepped in and backed King John. The Pope declared the Magna Carta as shameful document to be forced on a King with the threat of violence. The Pope saw this as an attack on the Church’s authority over the King and Church territory. The King was supposed to answer to the Pope and the Pope was God representative on earth.

King John died during the civil war in 1216 his young son became King Henry III. Representatives for young King Henry III sign a new version with the clause that upset King John taken out and more clauses taken out in 1217. Henry III in 1225 at the age 18 signed an even shorter version and the final version was signed by Henry’s son Edward 1st in 1297. Edward 1st was best known as Longshankes who re-imposed royal authority over his people including the Jews in England known as the “Statute of the Jewry”.
The only reason Edward signed the most recent version of the Magna Carta was not because he believed God gave men rights but because he need English Freemen and Nobles to support him and his fight with the Scots and William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.

Now before the 1517 pretty much everyone in Europe was Catholic and the Pope and the Catholic Church had a lot of say even with the Royal houses of Europe. It wasn’t until the mid 1600’s did groups in England begun to assert the belief that the Magna Carta should represent all without distinction of class or status. But after that there were other documents enacting the will of God. In Britain the King or Queen of Britain was Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Elizabeth 1st who was a Protestant started this.

“Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governour [sic.] of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in the Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace;”

Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1563
Article XXXVII
Of the Civil Magistrates

“Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word or of sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: but only that prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.”

James the 1st of England (aka James the VI of Scotland) was a Protestant and for whom the King James Bible was commissioned by and is named after. King James 1st also wrote the Divine Right of Kings, which states that a king only has to answer to God and God detest rebellion.

True Law of Free Monarchies by King James in 1598,

“ As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their allegiance according to the form of government established among them, especially in a monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the divinity, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon, unity being the perfection of all things), so hath the ignorance and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude, blinded by them who think themselves able to teach and instruct the ignorants, procured the wrack and overthrow of sundry flourishing commonwealths and heaped heavy calamities threatening utter destruction upon others.”

Kings are called gods by the prophetical King David because they sit upon God his throne in the earth and have the count of their administration to give unto him. Their office is "to minister justice and judgment to the people," as the same David saith; "to advance the good and punish the evil," as he likewise saith; "to establish good laws to his people and procure obedience to the same,"as divers good kings of Judah did; "to procure the peace of the people," as the same David saith.”

He goes on about a Kings position in society. King and the law and explaining that a King is like a father and his subjects are his children and so on. Then ends with the following.

“I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins; but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny and may do so justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian church in his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as ye have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain, then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved), that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of their heavy curse.”

“Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and color), they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for. For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous but the commonwealth will be kept in better order, notwithstanding thereof, by him than it can be by his way-taking. * * *

I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins; but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny and may do so justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian church in his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as ye have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain, then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved), that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of their heavy curse”

In 1611 the King James Bible was finished. King James had a man the name of Thomas Helwys imprisoned for petitioning the King for separation of Church and state. Thomas died in prison in 1616.

In Europe you had Kingdoms that accepted certain religions as their official religion. France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire were Catholics and Britain was Protestant. At this time in history it was common for countries to have an official religion. This was the history the Founding Fathers knew. This was the mixture of God and politics they knew. Until the influence of Enlightenment Movement.

The Age of Reason was in the 17th century which the sciences were on the rise and political debates were being made about the existence of God. Then the Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe somewhere 1680 1700 and ended around 1800. Both these periods were pushing religious theocracy out as well as Monarchy powers. The basic idea of the Enlightenment Movement is to humanize religion. Enlightenment philosophies rejected the idea of original sin. It rejects revealed religion principals. Philosophers introducing the idea that God maybe the creator of all thing but God does not interfere in mans life. Mans relationship with God is a private one.

Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” written 1792 and published 1794,

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Even though this was written about a year or two after the Constitution this was a view point that was circulating amongst some of the Founding Fathers as well as some of the people of the time.

The Founding Fathers were men of different beliefs and different understanding of God. They didn’t agree with each other on issues of politics and religion. The ideas of the Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe were in America and the Founding Fathers not only having knowledge of European history and but also were learning the ideas and philosophies of the Enlightenment period. Thomas Jefferson went as far as creating his own Bible which is known has the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson edited the New Testament, which he removed portions such as angels, Jesus’ miracles, Jesus’ genealogy, the trinity, prophesies and most importantly the resurrection.

From the “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” aka the Jefferson Bible

60: And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

61: Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

62: Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

63: There laid they Jesus,

64: And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Jefferson ends it there with no resurrection. Much of what Jefferson edited is considered the foundation of Christianity. Jefferson wanted to eliminate what he considered religious dogma and the supernatural aspects. He basically wanted just the ethical teachings of Jesus to be important. Some of his contemporaries agreed with him but many disagreed him and yet tolerated his right to such views.

Founding Fathers understood the potential danger of a government or a leader who claims the will of God as reason for control the will of the people. This is why religion is separate from government and the Founding Fathers did not want to take any chances of allowing the government or leadership to fall under the concept of divine right of kings.

“As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them.” - Tench Coxe, September 28, 1787

UR

A Couple Thoughts

First I was watching the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearings on Goldman Sachs. The Senators particularly Sen. Levin (D-MI) were grilling members of Goldman Sachs and their part in the financial crisis. It was amazing how little these Senators understood how Wall Street works or they were covering their own asses. The Senate committee that Wall Street should be like a savings account and everyone’s investment should be safe. But the reality is as it was explained by those testifying it’s more like gambling. Believe it or not there are people who are looking for risky investments because the payoff is better. In other words you can play it safe and bet on the sure thing but the return will be small or you can take a risk and bet on the long shot which will make you more money sooner. Now I’m not a financial person so I won’t try explaining. But basically people wanted risk and they got it and they lost. People were warning that the housing bubble was going to burst but no one knew when but people kept betting on it and they lost. Of course our government doesn't want to take any responsibility in all this even though they have blood on their hands.

Side thought one time a house was considered a home but during the housing bubble a house was an investment.

Now let’s go to immigration. Arizona has passed the first State immigration law. Now of course this is causing a lot of commotion. Arizona has tried to reach out to the federal government but to no avail. So Arizona had to take matter into their own hands. All this law does is give State and local police the right to ask for proof of legal status i.e. Green Card or equivalent proof. Now the confusion is whether the law allows them to just walk up and ask or if it’s just during a criminal investigation.

See immigration is strictly falls under the Federal Government. It’s the Federal Governments job to deal with legal and illegal immigrants. But the States are the ones that have to deal with the cost and most problems created by illegal immigrants. Here is the strange thing in most States if an illegal immigrant is arrested and even they go through the court system and even if they go through the prison system, they are not deported. They are simply released back into the community. Why? Because the States can’t hold them or afford to transport them and the Feds don’t have the resources to pick them up. Just imagine if the worst illegals were sent back after they served their sentences instead of being simply released back into society. But this will not mean much if the Feds don’t secure our southern boarders. Or we can convince Mexico to become our 51st State which I think would be easier.

What’s surprising is that many other countries in the world have a lot stricter laws about being in their country illegally than we do.

UR

Why Scottish Independence Will Never Die

“It's not death if you refuse it... It is if you accept it.” James O’Barr

Scotland hasn’t been an independent country for at least 300 years. Many would say it’s been a lot longer. Regardless, today Scotland is not an independent country. It is still part of a union under the control of a foreign government and monarchy. The union is known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland i.e. the UK or Britain. It is made up of North Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.

At one time this also included the whole of Ireland but in 1919 Ireland waged a war for independence. In 1922 Ireland became a Free State but North Ireland remained under British control and by 1937 it was a sovereign state. By 1949 Ireland completely left the British Commonwealth and became the Republic of Ireland and a true independent nation. North Ireland is still part of the UK.

Today Scotland may have a devolved government and many freedoms but they are not a sovereign body and the Parliament of the United Kingdom located at the Palace of Westminster in London, England has last say over any decisions made by the Scottish Parliament. The British can even abolish the Scottish Parliament regardless of public opinion.

Many have heard of William Wallace the great Scottish patriot who waged a war for Scottish independence from England from 1297 to his execution by the English in 1305. From the times before and after Wallace the Scots have desired nationhood. For over 700 years Scots have fought to be their own people. Through the years English Monarchs would invade Scotland and even though they won many battles they never broke the spirit of the Scot. In 1745 after the Jacobite Uprising, King George II and the Parliament of Great Britain passed the Act of Proscription which was created to destroy the clan system, ban Highland dress (i.e. the kilts), tartans, bagpipes, teaching Gaelic and even public gatherings. Punishments for violating the Act could range from a fine to imprisonment and even being sent off to a penal colony. The Act was repealed in 1782. During the 18th and 19th centuries the Lowland and Highland Clearances were taking place, in which Scots at many times were forcibly removed from their lands. Many ended up in Australia, Canada and America.

But today Scots have it better that their ancestors. Many of those in Scotland may fear Scottish Independence because they are unsure what kind of future they may have or what kind of government they will end up with. But I ask them to think about when America won its independence or when Ireland won its independence. Many had the same fears and concerns. No one, not even the leaders, was sure what would happen but they both made it. And there is no reason why the Scots would not as well.

So do Scots really want to be called British or do they want to be called Scots and Scots only? Do they want a country that has the right to self determination and that answers to no one? Do they want Scottish Independence to die? Do they want all those who went before them that lived through oppression and died to have died for nothing? I believe deep inside every Scot is a desire to be Scottish and a country they can call their own.

Now is the time for Scots to stand and call for Independence. Now is the time for all to stand and say they want Scotland to be Independent. It is time for one united Scottish choir to raise their voices so that they can be heard even in the highest points of heaven. Governments will never hear the voice of one but they cannot ignore the single voice of the many.

Scots may have been oppressed. Scots may have been sent into exiled. Scots may have been killed. But Scots and Scottish culture have survived and the idea of Scottish Independence with them.

After all these centuries I ask myself, why have the Scots not died away and just become known as British or why have their desire for Independence has not died? This is when the quote from the graphic novel “The Crow” by James O’Barr pops into my head “It's not death if you refuse it... It is if you accept it”.

UR

And The Controversy Still Continues

It’s been 145 years since the American Civil War and the controversy still continues. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia while declaring April as Confederate History Month in Virginia made a speech, which he failed to mention slavery as the main issue for the war. This of course is a big mistake to make. McDonnell apologized and stated that slavery was the main reason for the Civil War. But for some it seem the real issue is that Confederate soldier are being remembered. I’ve recently read an article called “Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?” by Roland Martin, a CNN political analyst who stated,

“And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.”

But is it fair to lable all Confederate soldiers as "domestic terrorist"? Now I could bring up the fact there were the tariffs that were imposed on the Southern States by the Federal Government. Or the fact that even though Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery when he became President he wasn’t going to interfere with it. In fact when the Civil War broke out in 1861 President Lincoln ordered that Union Generals were not to free slaves even in captured area under Union control. In 1862 in a letter to New York Tribune Lincoln said,

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Then a month later he issues the Emancipation Proclamation. But in 1863 Lincoln wrote a letter to James Conkling who was have a meeting of loyal Northern Unionist in Illinois, which at the time Lincoln could not come to the meeting and in his letter he addressed the frustration and anger about the length of the war and the Emancipation Proclamation that many Unionists had. Lincoln said,

“You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then, exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.”

This shows that even Northerners had issues about fighting to free slaves. Many Union soldiers went AWOL when Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation.

What’s my point? Well, the fact is that when we look at history we always make the mistake to put our views, values and morals of today on those of history yesteryears. Yes today we know slavery is evil and wrong and with strong convictions, even though it continues in many countries in the world today, but in the 1800’s it was a different mind set. Many Northern States took up to 50 + years after abolishing slavery in their State to actually eliminating it from their State and the elimination of slavery for several States was only 15 years before the war and I believe New Jersey still had slaves into the war.

First, back in those days cheap labor was important and a worker rights wasn’t. In the South slavery was the norm but in the North child labor was a norm. Children worked in factories and mines. Today we would say it was wrong. During the time before and after the Civil War the Government was in the West forcing Indians on reservations and those who refused were hunted down like animals. Today we say that is wrong. Plus during the Civil War Indians on reservations were shorted on supplies and money promised to them because the Government need to use it to fight the Civil War. Was that right?

Just to understand the majority of Southern Confederate soldiers did not have slaves. Slaves were a rich mans luxury. Yes many Officers in the Confederacy did have slaves and many Officers did not. Wealthy slave owners did not have to fight because they had slaves so they were exempt from fighting. Wealthy Northerners were able to pay to get out of the War. So this is why the Civil War was known as the poor man’s war. Many in boarder states had to chose sides and sometimes this divided families.

Why would poor Southerners fight in a war about slavery when they don’t own slaves? See whether you like it or not the culture of slavery was the norm for many of these men even though they didn’t own slaves, it was just the way it was to them. They didn’t know any better. The times were different then. For them they were fighting for what they saw as a States Rights issues and yes slavery was part of that States Right at the time. Another reason was conscription and draft. Even though many may have originally volunteered but their enlistments was extended. Then many were eventually drafted. In the beginning both sides thought it would be a short war, about a yearlong was the general view. But by 1962 both sides knew this was not going to be the case.

Another reason was out of State loyalty. We must remember in those days loyalty to ones State trumps the loyalty to the Federal Government. Most people of those days identified themselves with great pride by the State they came from. Your State was your home. Even Union Troops units were identified by their States. This was a custom that went back before the Revolution War with State militias. But after the end of the Civil War this custom people once had has became less and less the case.

We have to remember that in those days there was no radios, TV, Internet, Twitter, Blogging or any form of instant mass communication accept maybe telegraph. News from other parts of the country could take days to reach most people. Newspapers of those days were typically local and probably written by a local journalist who came from the same culture as the reader, that’s of course if you could read. Most information was word of mouth or it came from local politician or your local minister and typically their views reflect the normal cultural understanding of that community.

Not only is it important to remember the horrors that Blacks had to endure has slaves in the south but also as free men in the north. History should never be simplified, it needs be kept honest and kept in it’s proper context of time. History should be complex because it’s about people and people are complex.

The Civil War is one of the most important wars in American history. My solution to all this is simple instead of April being Confederate History Month it should be declared Civil War History Month and all aspect should be reviewed honestly whether it be good and bad for all this is an important part of American History.

UR

Please let them keep it

Thanks to New Agers, Native Americans are becoming more guarded about their culture, spirituality and religions, which I believe is a good thing.

When it comes to Native American cultures professional New Agers steal it; they corrupt it and change it to fit the New Agers ways. Professional New Agers always want something to sell and they like to sell spirituality. You can have spirituality but you don’t own spirituality and you cannot sell what you do not own.

Native Americans are just people like anyone, same strengths and weaknesses with many of the same worries and concerns and problems like family, health, economics, jobs, alcoholism/drug addiction and many others things that we are worried about. The biggest concerns they have that we don’t, is survival of a tribal culture and having to walk between two worlds/cultures. I heard an Indian woman explain her daily difficulty she had going from her life on the Rez to her job off the Rez in the city and at the end of her work day going back to Rez life. The difficulty of going from Indian time to non-Indian time and then back. She described it as being a very difficult transition on a daily bases and having to learn to walk in two worlds.

American Indians are not a mystical people they just people, but people of a different culture. Their spirituality is what gets them through things. But many American Indians do lose their way just like non-Indians. They get lost in drugs and alcohol just like non-Indians and yes some lose their spirituality just like non-Indians.

Some Indians practice a traditional Indian spirituality, some practice a Christian based spirituality and some mix the two. Spirituality is about your relationship with God. Everyone can have a Spirituality without religion it make no difference whether it be Christian or Indian. Truth is there is no one “Indian spirituality” it varies from tribe to tribe. As Natives Americans vary from tribe to tribe so does their spirituality and rituals. It’s a culture thing, a tribe thing. It’s what makes them who they are. It’s sacred and must be kept that way. It’s their heritage.

The non-Indians who want to embrace Native American spirituality tend to reject Christianity for some reason, perhaps it’s the praying or rituals or maybe the rules or the bible. Well Indians do pray. Indians tend to pray for others or their people. Typically rituals are used for specific purposes to gain understanding of themselves. In some cases to discover what purpose the Creator has for the individual and they have to fulfill that purpose if they don’t bad things can happen to the individual. Even Indians and their God have rules. These are not things to be taken lightly. I would never recommend doing it under a New Ager it can harm or even kill you. Even though a New Ager would be easier because you just have to pay to do it. It’s different with Indians.

I’ve met New Agers who claim to practice a Native American culture or should I say lifestyle but yet they were vegetarians, against hunting, against guns, are pacifists and have anti-military tendencies. But the Indians I’ve met seem to love meat, many like to hunt, many have guns, not afraid to fight and not anti-military, either they were in the military or had a relative in the military. Indians did fight over territory, food and even for revenge. Most tribes had its allies and enemies. Even before the Europeans arrival war was part of American Indian lives. Indians had a very complex culture. New Agers try to simplify it, which is dishonest and degrading. New Agers like to try to make people believe America was one big peaceful commune and all Indians got along. Indians did war with each other but from what I can tell they did not have religious wars. Win or lose it was what was meant to be. If one tribe beat another tribe it was because they had better warriors or it just was their day. Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. It’s the way of nature.

If you learn a way of spirituality you should treat it like a gift and either keep it or give it away. But no worries, professional New Agers are very good at changing and charging. It’s all about what feels good and providing others at a price to feel good. I remember one Indian referred to New Agers as the “Doe Nation” which was a play on words for “Donation” because they almost always want finical “donation”. But for Indians it’s all about life, culture and heritage. Please let them keep it and if they want to share it they will.

UR

My Review of Yeagley's “St. Patrick’s Day Wish”

So I said I would comment on David Yeagely’s blog his post “St. Patrick’s Day Wish” March 17, 2010.

I would like to apologize for the length of this post, just too much to address.

Well, first he starts off by stating how he could not find any serious stories on St. Patrick’s Day and was curious why. He then proposes this question;

"Is the holiday just too ‘white’? Too Western European? Too ethnic, and therefore, to be avoided?"

Well of course he goes right to race. But Yeagley even went deeper. He still could not figure out why there wasn’t more serious coverage. Yeagley said,

"I’m still curious why there weren’t more stories in the national news on the actual St. Pat’s day. I found one AP story, “Irish at home, worldwide cheer St. Patrick’s Day,” by Shawn Pogatchnik, no less. But just the little exercise of having to search for some serious story in the national news made me wonder a wee bit. (Actually, a lot.)"

Are you saying, shall I dare say it? Conspiracy. Oooo, a conspiracy. Yup you figured it out, the Health Care Plan that Congress has been working on and that the Media has been focused on was only a red herring. You’re brilliant! It was President Obama’s plan to screw the “white” Irish Americans. Bwahahahaha! Come on Yeagley the media barely covers St. Pat’s Day. Even the traditional Irish Prime Minister’s visit to the White House on St. Patrick’s Day that goes back 15 years goes on with very little coverage over the years.

Let’s move on. Well he then goes back to the Aryans and the Celts.

Yeagley said;

“Recently, I have acknowleged the view that the foundational Aryan race is not Teutonic, but Celtic. I have looked more and more into this, and considering the available information, I’m more or less convinced.”

Well Aryan was neither. Aryan was classified as a sub-group Indo-Iranian language under the language group of Indo-European. But it originated from a word “arya” as well as deviations of “arya” which meant “pertaining to speakers of Indian/Iranian language.” or “pertaining to ourselves”. In Vedic Sanskrit texts it took on the meaning as of being noble, or righteous and even as of born in to a high caste. In the 19th century a German by the name Max Muller who was Philologists mistakenly referred to the Aryan as a race. He corrected his statement once he found out how people interpreted it. He said "The Science of Language and the Science of Man cannot be kept too much asunder…” In other word linguistics and anthropology should be kept very separate and should not be mixed together.

Then again all this means nothing to Yeagley because he would simple dismiss all this as liberals trying to cover up the truth about the Aryan race. If I posted these arguments at his site I would be called liberal all because I dare to disagree.

Now for the Celts. Celts were not a race, it was a language first then it grew into a social culture that shared a language, religion, and social organization but by all accounts never had a central form of government. But it is mainly the language that connected them but had diverse characteristics. Basically it was a group of many tribes that shared some social characteristics but mostly shared a language. As tribe intermingled and traded with each other and those outside cultural evolutions happened. The Celtic speaking tribes’ culture evolved from the Hallstatt culture in originating in present day Austria in the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and the La Tène culture in present day Switzerland in the Early Iron Age. Archeological evidence shows two distinct Hallstatt cultures, Eastern and Western. There seem to be no evidence of a significant cultural break between the Hallstatt culture and the La Tène culture. Celtic tribes were autonomous, they traded with who they like and attacked who the wanted even if it was another Celtic tribe. The Celts as well as the Irish Celts known as the Gaels were never a unified people or nation.

I saw some people who commented to Yeagley calling themselves as Celts. Truth is you may have Celtic ancestry but if you can’t speak a surviving form of Celtic such as Gaelic your not a Celt/Celtic. Tá brón orm ach is beatha teanga í a labairt.

Then again all this means nothing to Yeagley because he would simple dismiss all this as liberals trying to cover up the truth about the Aryan race. If I posted these arguments at his site I would be called liberal all because I dare to disagree.

So let’s get to the Irish. He says:

“How is it that the Celts, the Irish in particular, ended up in such misery by the 18th and 19th centuries?”

“The poverty-stricken, drunk, illiterate laborer–against whom there were actual laws in early American history? The Irish that came to America were truly the bottom of the British barrel.”

Well short answer is it was land grab by the Normans, Anglo-Normans, English, Protestants, a Puritan man name Cromwell and a famine that created a gentleman’s genocide due to English indifference. Pretty much what happen to American Indians here in America. Cromwell in 1649 to 1653 Cromwell went Ireland to bring the Irish under English control and suppress the Catholic Church. By the time he was done half the population of Ireland was gone. Either due to war, disease, or ship of to English colonies abroad has slave labor. By the 1800 Irish were second class citizens in the own country actually if you were Irish Catholic you were a third class citizen. English landlords control the lands and were basically the only employer the Irish have. Irish typically had to rent land and homes from the English landlords. But the English government for centuries really just wished the Irish would go away or die off. When the Great Famine hit in the 1840’s the British government basically decided to due what could be called a gentleman’s genocide. The British government decided to do nothing and let nature take its course.

Yeagley said,

“The poverty-stricken, drunk, illiterate laborer–against whom there were actual laws in early American history? The Irish that came to America were truly the bottom of the British barrel.”

Nothing like throwing in some stereotypes. The only reason the Irish that came to America as “truly the bottom of the British barrel.” Is only because the British government and British social system stuffed them to the bottom of the barrel. Imagine whites discriminating against whites.

Yeagley said,

"The Irish were all Catholic, all Democrat, and all settled north of the Mason-Dixon line.”

Umm. No! This again is a stereotype. A majority of immigrant Irish was Catholic and once in America some even converted to Protestant to give them an advantage. Irish did not come to America as Democrats, there was no such thing in Ireland. Irish look at anyone or any party that would help them. But it ended up the Democrats who courted the Irish. Yeagley should read about the United States presidential election of 1884 and James G. Blaine.

Yeagley said,

“the Irish came to profound success. Though the early days were plagued with violence, gangs, filth, and poverty, with hundreds of thousands of Irish men working in mines, factories, and sweatshops, eventually, they came to own the industries they worked for!”

Umm ok? Yeagley you do know not every Irish neighborhood was like the Five Points as portrayed in the “Gangs of New York”, right? But you forgot it was mostly the Irish who organized labor and created the foundation of Unions in this country. Still like them Yeagley? Hmm, I wonder why you forgot that.

Yeagley said,

“I know to this day Ireland is still used as a haven for international outlaws and rebels of every grade. Mabye that’s prejudicial, but, Ireland is in a constant state of turmoil, it seems. Such a small spot on the globe, it makes a mighty noise.”

Right, another stereotype. I’m sorry is he talking about the Republic of Ireland or British controlled North Ireland. Regardless it’s been pretty peaceful for the passed 10 yrs

Yeagley said,

“But they don’t seem as hysterical as the German people. Their tempers are generally wreak on themselves.”

Hmm. Sounds like Yeagley has an issue with someone.

Yeagley said,

“Perhaps if the Irish could focus on a larger vision, the grand, historical place they should hold, they could put something together in the way of white leadership. Again, I cannot accept the Teutonic approach, and the harrowing echo of that whole Nazi bit. The white race needs something quite different from that drone of disaster. A very different kind of leadership is needed. Let the red heads have a crack at it. They’re not afraid of a fight, for sure… We need rather to see that Irish enegy focused on a broader picture, a bigger goal, like, leadership of the white race.”

Oh good, more stereotyping, fighting and red heads.

So really what I got out of his post “St. Patrick’s Day Wish” of March 17, 2010. Is that this was all about the Nazis screwing up the idea of the white race as the master race. So now he is trying to re-associate the mythology of the Aryan race with the Celts. This is a pathetic attempt to give white supremacy a new white face i.e. the Irish and Celts.

Yeagley said, “That’s me wish fer the Irish, this St. Paddy’s Day. Éireann go Brách!”

I say, Póg mo thóin!

UR