The "fiscal cliff," or compromise does not mean making the other guy give you everything you want...

I have been hearing a lot about the 'fiscal cliff" lately, and a lot of it smells like manure.

The worst offenders are those trying to blame democrats, saying that it is because of their "irresponsible spending," which comes as a surprise,  since the republicans have had a pretty tight control over congress for as long as I can remember.  If the problem was merely convincing the democrats to cooperate, the problem would have been solved years ago, since they are the ones that have repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise.

On the other hand, the republicans have not only been unwilling to compromise, but have been obstructionist twelve out of the last twenty years, even going so far as to start rambling about impeaching President Obama before he was inaugurated for his first term. I will repeat that, they were talking about impeaching him before he even took office. yet they are the ones complaining about a "lack of compromise."

I am willing to believe that they might mean well, but to suggest that the party that has been willing to negotiate is the one that is not cooperating suggests either that the republicans do not understand that compromise means that both groups have to make concessions, or that they are so arrogant that they believe that they can get away with running the country into the ground for a third time.

Then again, there does seem to ba an issue with people remembering their shenanigans, since there was little uproar the second time they did it, when they dragged their feet on the issue of a federal budget until the government almost shut down for a second time, or that people forgot that they were the party so intent upon forcing Clinton out of office that the federal government did shut down for a few days.

Personally, I hope we "go over the fiscal cliff," and it ruins the republican party. They have lost any sense of what their party is supposed to be about. They keep talking about the president as if he is some sort of felon, but fail to own up to the fact that they are the ones who have shown that they are willing to ruin the country in order to promote their agenda.

Animate Vs. Inanimate.

After the latest school shooting and the obligatory politicking, I fee the need to explain the difference between animate and inanimate objects, since there are so many people that blame the incident on firearms.

animate objects are things like people and animals. They are called animate because they are able to act on their own.

Inanimate objects, on the other hand, are things like computers, cars and rifles. They are unable to do anything without something causing them to do so.

This leads to the first of my two main issues with the reaction to the latest shooting:

Blaming inanimate objects.

Since firearms are inanimate, this means they are also unable to load or fire themselves. Since they are unable to fire themselves, it is ridiculous to believe that they could cause someone to decide to fire them, as that is a task that is far more difficult than firing themselves. Yet, there are many that think that the availability of firearms is the causal factor in the shootings.

That is as reasonable as saying that the availability of spoons makes people fat.

Which leads to problem number two:

scapegoating as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.


The reasons for these mass shootings are many, and are complex, but a recurring theme is poor mental health. But this part of the puzzle receives little attention, in part because sensationalism, and partly because of those who use these shootings as a means of promoting an agenda that requires scaremongering.

One problem with their "solution" is that it will not work, as the goal of these shooters is not shooting, but hurting others, shooting is merely the means to that end.
restrictions on firearm ownership will only be effective in controlling "gun violence" if they are completely banned, and no firearms are available. Since we all know how good the government is at enforcing bans of other items, this proposal seems not only doomed to failure from its conception, but will serve to create another criminal underclass to take advantage of the demand. Even if there was a way to ban firearms effectively, and such a ban did eliminate violent crimes committed with firearms, it still would not work because the problem has not been addressed:

Some people are Violently insane, are not taking meds to take care of their violent insanity, and they decide that committing violent acts against others is an acceptable thing to do. This is the problem. Instead of listening to assholes who use these tragic incidents as an excuse to further their agenda based on the idea that an inanimate object is the problem. We need to use reason, and find ways to ensure that those who suffer mental illness receive treatment. Anything less than that is foolish and criminal.

Rioting over today's imagined insult.

I have been thinking about the riots in the Islamic world, this time over a video that portrays their religion and their prophet in a less than favourable light. My problem is that I can't think of any reason to agree with them.



    What I mean is, the riots are just one of many violent tantrums thrown when someone says something they do not like, and enough of the Islamic world sees it to cause a reaction. The reaction is not one of mature adults sincerely desiring respect, but one of immature people who wish to force their view on others, regardless of the consequences.

    While I am aware that those who are rioting do not represent Islam as a whole, the fact that the issue keeps resurfacing seems to mean that the larger community is, through a demonstrated unwillingness to end the behaviour, also complicit in the rioting.

    The issue of violence erupting in the Islamic world every time someone says or prints something they find objectionable is part of a larger problem. The problem is that those in what I sincerely hope is the majority of the faith are standing by and allowing a violent, vocal, regressive minority to continue to not only give their religion a terrible reputation, but are standing by when those people commit atrocious acts of violence.

    The recent actions of Turkey's prime minister to make Islamophobia a 'crime against humanity" is at best a tasteless joke, especially considering the Armenian genocide. making it a crime is based upon the fallacious idea that allowing someone to say things that are less than respectful of Islam is the same as restricting the practice of Islam.

    Anyone who knows me knows how I feel about the Christian fundamentalists and their bleating about how forcing them to comply with the rules is the same as restricting their right to practice their religion. I feel that the Turkish prime minister's claim is just as absurd. it becomes more so when he acknowledges the fundamental principle of rights being reciprocal, but intentionally twists such a principle to restrict the rights of all but himself and those who believe like him.

My right to speak out, in a manner consistent with my conscience is more important than your right to be protected from being offended by my speech, if only because you have no such right.

Keep your religion out of my politics, and i will keep my politics out of your religion, M'kay?

This is a sore point for me, as the vast amount of evidence points towards a specific intent on the part of the framers; keep religion and government separate. period.

Despite this, There seems to be an organized effort to force one religion's view upon the government, and not in some far off islamic country, but here in the U.S.

People like Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry want their followers to believe many falsehoods, including the lie that this is/was a Christian nation. i say lie because there is not only evidence this isn't true, but direct statements from  those who wrote the constitution stating that this is specifically not a Christian nation, or aligned with any other religion.

They cited the wars fought in Europe over religious differences, and that they did not want that. They decided that, since the various factions proved unable to get along in systems where there was no separation between church and state, and therefore in the new nation they were creating, the two would never meet.

it is this simple:  Church+state=bloodshed,  Since Church+state=bloodshed>>> do not add Church+state(ever).

Why my republican values have led me to vote democrat.

       While it might seem contradictory in our very partisan politics to say that my

republican values have led me to vote democrat, it is because the republican party

has abandoned those values in the constant search for votes.

      This is to say that by adopting fundamentalist ideology, embracing corporatism,

and engaging in obstructionism, the republican party has transformed itself into

something toxic to the United States. This is not to say that the democrats are free of

flaws, but those flaws are not ones that are inherently at odds with my values.

    To start, lets look at the fundamentalist values. By this, I mean a form of

"Christianity" that:  Advocates bigotry, up to and including the death of those they

dislike. For proof, check out the whole issue with chick fil'a and the group they

funded, a group that went to Uganda and pressured them to pass a law making

homosexuality a capital offence, you know, the kind you get killed for. They also are

misogynist, having the temerity to spit hairs on the issue of rape. And of course

theirs is a form of Christianity that simultaneously rails against the spread of islamic

law, while trying to install their "Christian" laws.

      This alone is enough to damn them in my eyes, since these positions go against

simple decency. Advocating death for those different than yourself is not only

reprehensible by most people's sense of right and wrong, but goes against the

constitution, namely the 14th amendment. ( you know, the one specifically

prohibiting treating others differently because they are different.) The issue of rape

is one that is sensitive, and destructive, and to imply that some cases of rape are "not

really rape," or that others are "legitimate rape," indicates a deep seated hatred of

women, a complete lack of reason, ignorance about what rape is, cynical disregard

for facts when they become politically inconvienient, or some horrible combination

of all of the above. At the minimum, such views make a person incompetent to hold

any office other than town turd wrangler, but when faced with the fact that the

republicans are as shameless about expressing their views on rape, it makes them

the sort of people that are unfit to hold any office where they might make any

decision that affects others. Then we get to the hypocrisy of condemning the spread

of Sharia law, while trying to install the "Christian-" flavoured version of sharia law

in our country.  This wouldn't be so bad if, like in islamic countries where sharia law

 is practiced, that was the only religion practiced, or if Christianity did not have so

many conflicting sub religions. But we are a pluralistic society, and Christianity can't

even get along with itself. And we also have this pesky little part of the constitution

called the establishment clause that makes such laws illegal.


    Now, for those sympathetic to their religion, there is their embracing corporatism.

  To be clear, this is not the same as capitalism, but is nothing more than a welfare

state for corporations.  This might not be so bad if it was the democratic party, who

already has a reputation for " enlarging welfare," but it is the party that is constantly

pushing to erode workers rights, insists upon portraying unions as parasites, defends

extortionate wages for executives that cripple corporations, and fails to see value in

efficiency wages, a concept that any college freshman can see value in despite their

beer soaked vision.

If your grasp of economics is such that their economic policies do not scare you, then

maybe the fact that they are childish and as useless as tits on a boar might convince

you. The only times that the federal government has had to "shut down" was due to

republicans in congress keeping a budget from being voted on for so long that time

ran out to approve and enact a new budget. Also, the Clinton administration was

marred by the  fact that the republicans spent the majority of it ( and a large sum of

money) trying to remove Clinton from office. President Obama wasn't even in office

before the republicans started after him, with vaguely racist claims regarding his

birth certificate, and calls to have him impeached starting shortly after he was

elected.  the fact that  the republican party has spent 12of the last 20 years keeping

things from moving forward in order to make the opposition "look bad," including

holding the nation " hostage" with their budget shenanigans means that they have

abandoned a republican value that, by abandoning it, makes them too far gone for

redemption in my eyes. That value is love of country, they abandoned it when they

 put their partisan bullshit ahead of the common good.

What is capitalism?

What capitalism is can be summed up simply as a free exchange of value for equal value.   What that means is that people are free to exchange between each other their goods, effort, ideas, and any thing else with a value, tangible or otherwise.


Before I continue, I feel that I need to define a few terms.

Property is the sum of what an individual owns. This is not limited to tangible goods, but includes their life, labor, and ideas.

Free exchange is the principle that a person is free to dispose of their property as they see fit. this means that, not only is a person free to sell their property, but is also free from inducement to sell their property if they do not wish to do so. This also includes freedom from selling their property for a value of exchange less than they feel the property is worth.

Market-based economy is an economic system where goods and services are sold in an open market, and the relative scarcity and demand for the good or service determines the relative worth of the good or service.



it is not, an unrestrained search for wealth, even if that search is not incompatible with capitalism. it is a delicate system that needs a strong government to protect the property rights of it's citizens. By this, I mean, the government needs to have the authority to match the responsibility entrusted in it.

capitalism has been given a bad reputation for a while, but this is an undeserved reputation, as it stems from a lack of a basic understanding of what it is. There are many people that can be blamed for this, social activists that think they know better than everyone else, opportunistic politicians, and corrupt businessmen are a few. The recent meltdown on wall street is not an indictment on capitalism, but an affirmation of it's most fundamental principles. The business that needed the bailout were all guilty of: fraud, stock manipulation, seeking government protections instead of competing with other businesses, and worst of all, rewarding those entrusted to run the businesses for failing to run the businesses properly.


All of those behaviors are counter to the most fundamental principle of capitalism, which is a fair exchange between two or more consenting parties.
Fraud violates this principle because it is outright theft. while it may not use force as an inducement, it is still theft because one or more parties involved in the exchange is being deceived, and is therefore unable to give an informed consent.
Stock manipulation is also theft, as it involves fraud.
Seeking government protection violates this principle because it allows a party in the exchange to force the other party to give a greater value in exchange than the true worth of what they are receiving.
The reason the last is the worst is due to it not only being theft, but also a form of theft that encourages the other behaviors.

Another aspect of capitalism in the market-based economy is the labor market. This is the market for employees, the people that make the goods or provide the services sold in the market for goods and services. because of the previously mentioned behaviors, this market has suffered greatly. This is a terrible thing, because those that earn their living in the labor market are unable to purchase the goods and services that they provide. This is due to the practice of outsourcing and limiting benefits or pay.

By limiting pay, the company makes short-term gains, but at the cost of long-term stagnation. This stagnation means that, in times of economic crisis, the economy is slow to recover, as the fundamental mechanic of the economy, free exchange, is stifled due to a lack of disposable income. This is due to the fact that a person can only spend so much money in a limited amount of time, and since the practice of limiting pay to benefit those at the top of the company has the effect of concentrating wealth, there are fewer consumers, as the few with disposable income do not create enough demand for the goods being produced to justify creating new jobs in order to create even more goods. this has the effect of limiting the market cycle.

In short, capitalism did not fail. in fact, it succeeded until the government intervened and prevented the deserved failure of the business that were pursuing bad policies.

i had to share this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GrEbJBFWIPkHere is a powerful argument for pulling our collective heads out of our asses on the issue of same gender marriage.

My view is simply, if heterosexual couples are able to be married, and gain all of the rights and privileges therein, and our constitution prohibits granting rights to some citizens while denying them to others, then either homosexual couples have the right to get married, or noone does, and all marriages have no legal standing.