Suggestions for Senators Boxer and Feinstein and that Bunch of Theives they Hang with

Suggestions for Improving Security in Congress
Fire all guards except two and if they take their job seriously, send them to jail . Promise to build yourselves a wall but build only 8 inches a year. Promise yourselves a virtual fence but don't build it. If the Mexican embassy complains about anything you do, apologize profusely and do exactly what they tell you to do. If any government, anywhere so much as accuses you of human rights violations fire a few people. Always do exactly what these governments tell you to do regardless of any effect on the life, liberty or property of any American citizen. Continue to ingore the Constitution except when it gives you advantage. Anyone who wants should be allowed access to any part of the building they want to enter. It's not right that you should ever bar anyone since they are just good family people who are hard working. And if you hassle anyone you will probably just end up separating famlies. Keeping anyone out of any part of the building would just prove that you are a racist who engages in racial profiling whenever possible. The fact that you bar anyone from any part of the building just proves that you are a bunch of nativist, racist bigots. I am only proposing any of this because it is for the good of the children and it is becoming very obvious that you hate children and are out to harm them. How can you be so unfeeling?
I would not have suggested any of this, except, if it's good enough for your constituents it's good enough for you. Don't ever say I was unwilling to share the anarchy you've created.

The New Republic and Scott Thomas Beauchamp

I've read a lot about this big mess TNR has gotten itself into. There is one aspect that needs more discussion than I've seen. Scott Thomas Beauchamp described in detail how he verbally abused a woman who had been badly deformed in combat. Leave aside the fact that STB seems to be the only human who has ever seen this woman. Let's just assume that Beauchamp was telling the truth. Why would the New Republic want someone so lacking in moral character as a reporter? Does TNR not understand how disgusting his behavior was? If TNR can't identify scumbag behavior, why should any reader be at all interested in what TNR has to say about moral issues.
I suspect TNR thinks that Beauchamp is not responsible for his own behavior. TNR feels that having been in the army and been exposed to war somehow made the army and/or George Bush responsible for this man's behavior. I guess the argument goes something like this: I treat other people like dirt but it's not my fault because the evil Bush invaded Iraq so when I volunteered to join the military the evil of the evil Bush made me a zombie controlled by his evil evilness to abuse this woman and enjoy doing it. You have got to feel sorry for Beauchamp since he has lost control of his own life to Bush the evil zombie master. Apparently in the world view of TNR people such as Beauchamp lack responsibility and the power of choice, he is denied this basic human attribute. But George Bush is fully human. George can be responsible and make choices. Though I get the impression that Bush always makes the wrong choice. ALWAYS. But how do you prove that someone has freedom to choose if he always chooses the same. Or is it just enough to say that he's evil and he will always choose evil but still everything is his fault. So I'm left with this vision of a world of poor, helpless zombie slaves and an evil zombie master. I don't buy it but that's the world TNR offers us.

Superdelegates

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about superdelegates? It seems that the Democratic party got tired of people like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter being chosen as their presidential candidates. So, now about one third of the delegates are given delegate spots because they are reliable party regulars (use your own imagination as to what that might mean). These delegates, the superdelegates, are not chosen in caucuses or primaries. They are put in place by the party establishment. The fact that the superdelegates are one third of the total delegates means that the party establishment has a virtual veto over most candidates. It can also be deduced that a candidate with 18% of the popular support could become the final candidate. If we compare the Democratic party to a party that chooses its delegates based on primary and caucus votes, a rank and file Democrat's primary vote is worth one third less. If anyone has a friend who is a Democrat, pointing this out to them might be doing them a favor since it is not information that is commonly known.

Mythopoeic Thought-- part III-- evolution and Moses

That new chick on the View said she didn't believe in evolution because it isn't in the Bible. I bet she believes in credit cards and Prada bags. But seriously, folks, maybe she's expecting more of the Bible than the Bible meant to be. If the Bible had talked about SUVs, microwaves and speed dating what would have been the point. The original readers would have been confused and less likely to pass it along to their kids. Like so many other books the Bible spoke in the language of those to first hear it and spoke to their problems. Science was not a part of their world. Even at the time of the most recently written parts there were somewhat advanced science and mathematics available in the Roman world. But it would be more accurate to say that their so called scientific writings were about the subjects that are presently within the scope of science. But they would not completely meet a modern definition of science since the scientific method was yet to be codified.But there is a more important way in which these ancient writings differed from modern scientific writing. The ancients did not have such a category as science. It was just another branch of philosophy. Aristotle covered these topics in his book entitled, Physics. And the people from the times of Genesis and Exodus, etc., would not have recognized something as separate from religion as philosophy. The Genesis account of creation put the creation in the context of their world while preserving the unities they lived in. They lived in seven day weeks and rested from work on the seventh and God created in seven days and rested on the seventh. Men were in charge of women and many animals and this was the order and meaning in which God had created. No need for a man to ever feel guilt about killing an animal since this was the natural order of things.Evolution is a scientific theory. Ancient man had no more than the beginnings of science. So it would have been as strange as a reference to Prada bags to reference science.And the New Testament was not written in order to place mankind within the order of primates. It was written to explain how man could better relate to God and the world in whch he lived.

How Do You Bribe A Congressman?

I know this. This is easy. You bundle up thousands of dollars with other people's names on it and give it to the congressman. He grabs it more quickly than you thought possible. Then you give him the proposed bill your lawyers have written . You don't have to say anything else: he knows his job is to get the bill passed. He gets the six figure salary for being a member of congress wether or not he does anything. But these extras require him to produce. And he usually will. This isn't really a 'do nothing' congress. It's a 'won't do nothing unless you pay a whole lot for every little thing' congress. Doctors call it fee for service and they love it.The constitution gives congress all the power to set rules for itself and to oversee its ethical standards. So congress has made it legal for its members to accept bribes. I don't think the founders ever imagined that we would elect 435 people so morally corrupt. The majority of them are taking bribes with both hands while chanting, "Get Bush. Get Bush."Barrack Obama claims to represent ethical purity. With a close care for words that Bill Clinton would respect B. O. claims not to accept money from special interests. But apparently he will accept massive bundles from the same men who give special interest money to other candidates. Part of what is 'new' about B. O. is that he is the 'new' one being given a pass by most reporters.

Mythopoeic Thought

Ancient men related to the world differently than moderns. They tended to the subjective. As explanations of the world mythic stories of gods, heros and talking dogs were more than sufficient. This was because the myths filled the world with the stuff of human personality which was all that ancient men needed or sought.The ancients lived in a much more compact universe. Religion, philosophy, sociology and all science were one. Men created myths, they shared them and used these myths to guide themselves and their children. And as far as we know, most all of them believed these myths.If you enjoy history and literature, like I do, an understanding of mythopoeic thought helps you make more sense of the ancient writers. I once saw an exhibition of household items from ancient Greece and Rome. Almost all of these items were decorated with pictures of gods and heroes. They saw gods throughout nature and replicated this indoors. Livy narrates the story of Hannibal's conflict with Rome. But from time to time Livy will pause Hannibal's story to relate that at about this time a five legged goat was born in some part of Italy or maybe that a child is born with a full set of teeth. Such things spoke loudly to the Romans but the priestly books that explained the meaning of these prodigies have been lost. I would see such events as unusual and look to biology and genetics for explanations. The Romans felt these events told them something about the world and would go the priestly books for explanations.This a brief introduction to mythopoeic thought. I plan to write in future posts about how all of this applies to the contemporary world.

What are the Chances Health Care Will Be Reformed

There is about zero chance the next president will reform health care. When I hear this much talk about health care reform I know it's election time. The democrats all have a 'plan.' But the amount of money they take from insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies make their words ring hallow.When Bill Clinton ran the first time he talked endlessly about reforming health care. When he was elected he turned the whole thing over to Hillary. She formed a task force and then refused to allow the public any knowledge of or input into their deliberations. (I suppose this authoritarian style is what we can expect from a Hillary presidency.) Her final plan was too complex to be understood. And congress didn't even seriously consider it. If she had not wanted reform, one of the most certain roads to that outcome would have been exactly what she had done. The Clintons never again mentioned health care reform. And the failure to achieve reform did not seem to have ever caused any sadness to anyone in that administration. And why would they care since they all had good health insurance (I got to pay for it). The Clintons campaigning on health care reform was just a cold, calculated come on to get votes. They got the votes, put on a little act and then returned to their normal lives. As long as K Street finances our elections there will be no meaningful health care reform. But politicians will continue to make empty promises.

Dear Rudy

I really like Rudy and was looking forward to voting for him. I still love him but doubt that I could ever vote for him. The reason: I no longer feel he is serious about national security. Nothing he says or does makes for real security unless he will secure our borders. If he can't see this I can't take him seriously. Unless he makes this his policy and is VERY vocal about it, I will write in Bullwinkle before I will vote for someone who is a semi surrender monkey. To allow anyone to walk in anytime they want and do whatever they please is not acceptable at this point in our history. As near as I can tell Rudy is willing to give up America to just about anyone. The man needs to rethink this stand.

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling!

The temperature of the sky is 1.003 degrees warmer than a hundred and seventeen years ago (a rough approximation). If present trends continue the earth will be a cinder in mere eons. What if present trends do not continue that long, you ask. Shut up with your stupid questions! Those who do not agree with me are flat earth, holy roller planet killers who will be removed from any academic positions and shouted down in public. You have no right to question my computer generated model but you must be ruled by it and your civil rights must bow before it. You big stupid, a man who won the Nobel prize said the debate is over. So, quit debating, already. And why would I need proof? You only need proof before the debate ends. And didn't I tell you that the debate is over. You're really starting to get on my nerves.
What I don't understand is why people who talk so passionately about the horrors of global warming have to travel via SUV and private jet to spread the message. I take this as a pretty sure indication that they don't really believe what they preach. Or do they think their wasteful byproducts don't stink?

Freedom of Speech

I almost never listen to talk radio. I am too easily given to anger and hate. And talk radio is too full of both for me to venture there without upsetting my serenity. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh from time to time and have always felt that he calculatedly sets out to rile his listeners up with anger and fear. This is a luxury that some can handle. My soul and disposition are too markedly affected by them. Because of the nature of my personality, I experience more than enough anger and fear in the normal course of things.
But I think that talk radio has been good for America. It has gotten points of view expressed that would not otherwise have been expressed. If we had stuck with the MSM we would not even be aware that people would think or say such things. Talk radio and, now, the internet have freed America from the grip of an oppressive censorship that was only growing worse as college faculties have increasingly frozen out divergent voices. There is some irony that the law, English and political science departments of Harvard have competed with the Jesuits of the counter-Reformation in stifling opposing points of view. (My source for the info in this paragraph is David Horowitz.)
And now there is talk that the Democrats in Congress want to stifle free speech in America by reinstituting the so-called fairness doctrine. I'm old enough to remember when the fairness doctrine was in effect. Stations would present two sides of an issue. But some issues have 5 or more sides. And the 'opposing' view was usually represented by a few of the usual boring suspects that made it plain that the whole thing was a charade. It was a ritual bow to the alter of freedom of speech that lacked all respect for that freedom.
Let us be honest. We all know that few in congress care anything for freedom of speech. They are, with all due respect, a bunch of bribe taking time servers. Everyone knows that the Democrats only want the fairness doctrine reinstituted so that they can shut up some people who disagree with them. I would not be surprised if they follow this up with some measure that will price the internet out of the reach of many people. While talking about freedom of speech they will quiet as many voices as they can.

How Do You Talk to a Liberal?

This has happened to me at least three times in three months. I have friends and relatives that are liberals. On occassion the talk will turn to politics. They will make a typically liberal comment and if you offer evidence or an argument to the contrary, they turn semi-silent and semi-sullen and don't want to talk any more. And I'm left confused. If you have a belief but lack evidence or an argument to support it, why hold on to it? I guess that explains why I go away feeling they're angry at me. They either blame me for their lack of due diligence or they accept that it is their own fault. And it's easier to blame me than to change their belief system. This certainly helps explain why the daily kos is so lacking in reasoned argument and evidence and so full of nasty, angry and maybe even slanderous attacks. They seem not to have learned in college that ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments but rather fallacious.

What Is Important to Feinstein and Boxer?

Sometimes I call my senators to share my opinion with them. Lately the phones are busy most of the time. And if the phone is answered it is never answered by a human. A recorded voice says to leave a message for the senator.
Often I will communicate by email. Sometimes they send a reply to my email. But the replies are never responsive. The replies will be only obliquely related to my message. Once I sent an email to Boxer's local office. They sent back a form email saying that no message sent to the local office would be read: the senator will only consider emails sent to the Washington, D. C. office. The only way to send an email to the D. C. office is by using the form on the website. An email cannot be sent with this form unless a subject box is checked. There is a narrow list of subjects and they often cannot describe my message.
I have come to the conclusion that no one ever listens to the phone messages or reads the emails. The phone messages are routinely erased. Form replies are sent to emails based solely on the subject box checked.
I think congress knows why they are so unpopular. And I don't think they even care.