Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Old Whine From Old Wineskin

I suspect if I referenced and excerpted something from the Democratic Socialists of America again (I'm sure I've referenced and likely excerpted from members of the DSA, before) I am sure that no one would bat an eyelash.   The entire membership of the DSA, from the latest figures I could find from 2018 was 31,271. That is after a huge influx of new members after Trump became president, who knows what the figures will look like in ten years. 

In looking into numbers for this, I found that just one of the groups listed under "liberal Baptist" groups, the Progressive National Baptist Convention is estimated to have 1,500,000 members and there are other groups of Baptists who, I'm sure, would find  Baptist News Global congenial to their beliefs, at least one other of those as large.   

Unlike the play left, I can count.  

America As Baal Through The Vacuum Of Morality In Modernism

It is one of the most atrocious consequences of the short-shrift that the "founders" gave the Bill of Rights that its language can be so easily twisted for malignant purposes.   The terse, minor 18th century poetry of the First Amendment, alone, has been used by Supreme Courts and lower courts and lawyers and parties with personal and financial interests (probably the strongest of malignant forces relevant to what I'm saying, since the "Justices, judges, lawyers, etc. partake of those even as they disclaim them) . . . it has been very useful in pushing some of the very worst things in American life today which we are seeing destroy democracy.    

"Freedom of speech" is a slogan that, through the absolutizing force of the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. a cynical, cruel and aristocratic fan of Darwinian brutality in the law, the ACLU working on behalf of the enemies of egalitarian democracy, later and rather pudding headed Supreme Courts who not only made lying with impuity impune, they enabled it through setting up impossible to meet standards based on the superstition of psychology.   As it turns out, consulting the biographies and writings of the members of the ACLU, I don't trust their motives,  I think they were hoping their preferred ideological gang could gain power through the power of lies, imagining that "the masses" were invulnerable to the lies of their ideological opponents, the neo-Nazis and neo-fascists and white supremacists who they officially opposed (even as they provided them with free legal help in promoting their anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-freedom agendas).  

 I do think that on the part of many of them,  Holmes and the ACLU, certainly, there was more than a bit of anti-religious, more specifically anti-Christian motivation behind much of what they did and their ideological platforms, especially.   There were lots of rather stupid and gullible religious people who bought into that as if enabling lies, pornography, the promotion of Nazism, the KKK, other forms of fascism - most dangerously - and Marxism - in the idiotic pipe-dream of so many involved with ACLU style idiocy - I think a lot of that was the people who got divinity degrees and studied theology in college and grad school didn't want to be left behind in the cultural wave of modernism.  

The worst expression of this is that it leads poeple, those with educational credentials, people who believe they favor egalitarian democracy, people who have a vague notion of being "leftist" or "liberal" or "progressive" to adopt exactly those ideological positions and habits which are as counter-productive to producing what they believe they want as they are totally unnecessary.   I have been pointing out the sheerest idiocy of the pose of modernistic, educated niceness and free-speechyness that holds that we owe the Nazis the chance of doing again what they did in the 1920s and 1930s so they could do what they did starting in 1939 and which it took the combined forces of all of the Western democracies working with the moral equivalent of the Nazis in the Soviet Union to put down.  

There is no more obviously stupid and amorally irresponsible stand than the one that holds that the total suppression of neo-Nazism is not only impossible to do decently BUT THAT IT VIOLATES some kind of necessity of "balance" or "fairness" or some notion of liberalish scrupulosity BECAUSE IF WE SUPPRESS THE RACISTS WHO ANNOUNCE THEIR INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDES ALL OVER WE ARE SOMEHOW IN DANGER OF DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.   

There is nothing that more clearly shows up the idiocy of that regime of modern thought than that notion that we are powerless or incompetent to distinguish between people who announce their intent to gain power to murder, literally, billions of people and liberals who have no such intention.   Such idiocy was what led the Clinton administration to thwart the call for bombing the radio tower in Rwanda as it was sending out information to the mass murders, telling them where the people they were calling for them to kill were hiding so they could be murdered.   The people in our government, IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY who made that genocide enabling call so as not to be guilty of violating the scurple about "freedom of the press - freedom of speech" are some of the most shameful civil libertarians in the spotty history of that ideological camp.  

I have been finding in the past day that I'm finding the site Baptist News Global to be a totally unexpected and enormously important source of things to consider.  I would call them a "liberal Baptist" site but I'm losing my belief that such categorization is at all accurate in this area.   If someone told me 20 years ago that I'd be depending on Esquire, MSNBC, and such things as Baptist News Global for some of the most important information now, I'd have told them they were crazy*.  

Here is an extremely important and interesting article by H. Stephen Shoemaker about the idea that we must divorce politics from morality.  

Politics and moral values belong together. Jesus and the Hebrew prophets warned of the separation of religious practice and the political realm. Righteousness includes both personal morality and social morality – that is, where we seek the well-being of all people in a community and nation. Moreover, Hebrew and Christian scriptures urge special concern for the poor and most vulnerable in our midst, those whom Jesus called “the least of these.”

History has shown the destructive consequences when the realm of the sacred is divorced from the realm of politics. Into such a vacuum rushes totalitarianism. The “two kingdoms” theology of German Lutheranism so completely separated allegiance to God and allegiance to the State that it helped prepare the way for Hitler.

History has also shown the dangers when religion has sought to align itself with political power, preferring to rule rather than to serve – what some have called “Constantinian Christianity.” The founders of our nation were concerned to avoid theocracy in America; hence the First Amendment to the Constitution, which preserved freedom of religion and forbade the State’s establishment of one religion.

Religion serves best when it sees politics as an approximation of the values of the kingdom of God. When any religious or political group sees itself as THE expression of the kingdom of God, it turns idolatrous: “Politics as Baal.”

“Politics can be an awfully seductive substitute for God.”

In ancient Hebrew thought, the Baalim, or Baals, were the false gods that people worshipped, the “gods that are not gods” to quote the Apostle Paul. When our politics takes on divine pretension, it becomes idolatrous. Theologian Paul Tillich, who watched the rise of Hitler first hand, defined the “demonic” as when anything “finite” claims to be, or is taken to be, “infinite.”

When, therefore, the political realm itself is taken to be the final or ultimate realm, politics becomes Baal. Such is the danger of all totalitarian regimes and all political religions. Protestant Reformer John Calvin said that the human mind is a “perpetual idol factory.” Politics can be an awfully seductive substitute for God.

I think the secularization of American culture is the equivalent of that "two kingdoms theology".  Only here, it is not theology but political dogma based on a particular ideological - fundamentalist reading of the "no establishment" clause and the First Amendment.  One of the most astounding things I have discovered about the idiocy that results from the sciency, moderny, atheist, secularist, "left" is that their anti-religious ideology leads them to claim that morality can be divorced from politics.  As if every claim of possession of rights does not depend not only on claims of moral absolutism but are as dependent on someone endowing us with rights.   Nature does not exhibit such an endowment, the ideology of scientism is as guaranteed as Nazism (a scientistic ideology) to deny such an endowment. 

 As if every claim that a wrong has been done to someone doesn't absolutely depend on there being a moral standard that identifies acts as wrongs (sins) and the right of people to not have those done to them.   It was a bolt from the (baby) blue blog when a self-identified Lesbian Of Color complained that she was so sick and tied of all of the talk about morality - with the other mostly college-credentialed lefties joining in to whine about morality in politics, in the law, in society.   As I recall I pointed out that literally every political position that was advocated by the collected lefties there was absolutely based in claims of morality.  As I recall I concluded I may as well have been speaking Loglan.   They literally could not deal with the concept that they were continually spouting moral claims - the idea being so declassé and unfashionable. 

I think it's as much a contributor to what has happened here in the past fifty years as it was in Germany leading up to WWII.   I think not only Donald Trump, but the "white evangelical" heresy that supports him is a result of the vacuum that the secularization of American politics imposed by academic dogma, legal dogma, popular culture.   It is analogous to what the creators and champions of "more speech" ignored, that the other side was there and they would take advantage of the amorality that was pushed by such things as privileging lies in the way that only the truth should be privileged, of the enforced secularization of politics on the more lefty side - the side that doesn't even seem to know that its very basis of existence is dependent on a source of morality and the moral absolutes that flow from our Creator.   There is literally no other source for them.

I strongly suspect I will be leaning on the Baptist News Global site, it is deep and rich and,  I suspect, indispensable. 

*  I still had a subscription to The Nation and In These Times, neither of which I'm finding to be anywhere near as useful or dependable, even with vanden Heuvel and her hubby a reduced presence.   The Boston Globe is the wreck of itself I expected the NYT corp to make of it.  I'm finding much of the "new media" that I read then is better as an example of what a bunch of idiots had grabbed hold of the left since 1964 than they are reliable. 

Monday, November 18, 2019

Terrifying Confirmation

Let the legendary journalist say it. 

Legendary broadcaster and one-time Baptist preacher Bill Moyers says for the first time in his 85 years he fears for America.

Asked on the eve of impeachment hearings if he fears for the country, Moyers told CNN’s Brian Stelter: “For the first time in my long life – and I was born in the Depression, lived through World War II, have been a part of politics and government for all these years – yes, for the first time, because a democracy can die of too many lies, and we’re getting close to that terminal moment unless we reverse the obsession with lies that are being fed around the country.” . . . 

Haven't I been saying this for the past couple of decades? 

“All presidents lie. It’s a defense they use,” he said. “But not all presidents lie systemically. Not all presidents lie constantly.”

“But what we have now is a culture of lying, not only from within politics, but from within media that is determined only to protect and save the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and they lie” about things big and small.

“You don’t know what to believe anymore,” Moyers said. “I still believe that facts matter, but they’re trying to change the facts on us. And that’s where a few journalists and a few media outlets have a real role to play. It’s to always put on the table the evidence against the lies that are being told by the people who have a vested interest in lying.”

I will go farther than Moyers did and say that the legal regime that permits the media to lie will destroy democracy and I see absolutely no liklihood that even those who are being lied about most constantly realize that there is absolutely no reason for that to be the rule.  We are so totally suckered by the line of "free speech - free press" absolutism that was invented in the 20th century out of the carelessly chosen words of the first Congress that it is one of those thought crimes which I am ready to commit to even acknowledge that is happening all around us.   The lies told by the Republican-fascists, the billionaires and their hirelings are too sophisticated in their marketing to allow.   They will destroy equality, they will destroy democracy and as long as some pantomime of voting by those who buy their well crafted lies poeple will call American fascism "democracy".   That didn't start with Trump, it started with the Supreme Court "liberals" in 1964 and the New York Times and it was called "The First Amendment,"  "Freedom of the press,"  Freedom of speech."   And it's destroying democracy lie by lie by lie . . . 

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Anti-Brexit Campaigner Lord Buckethead Becomes Count Binface

He's a more serious candidate than Boris Johnson or Donald Trump.  

Obama As Kingmaker Is A Really, Really Bad Idea

Here is the estimable Jack Holmes on the announcement by former Massachusetts governor Patrick Duval for president: 

There are a number of good reasons why this is a bad idea. The field is too full. There are too many centrists already. It’s too late in the process. Patrick missed his window the last time around. Patrick has made a lot of money repping industries that are anathema to the Democratic primary base. He presently works at Bain Capital, and if there’s one thing guaranteed to alienate the rising progressive power in the party, it would be nominating a guy who works for Mitt Romney’s company.

"Asked about a number of policy issues that have divided the Democratic candidates, he outlined a set of positions that, taken together, place him closer to the ideological center than the left. He said he did not support “Medicare for all,” but did support a so-called public option; that he was in favor of eliminating or vastly reducing student debt but believed there were “other strategies than we’ve heard about” to do that; and that a wealth tax on the richest Americans “makes a lot of sense directionally” but that he would push for “a much, much simpler tax system for everyone.” “I don’t think that wealth is the problem. I think greed is the problem,” he said, noting that “taxes should go up on the most prosperous and the most fortunate,” but “not as a penalty.”

Well, that’s a pile of mush, isn’t it? Joe Biden could say that stuff, and has. Pete Buttigieg could say that stuff, and has. Cory Booker could say that stuff, and has. Hell, John Delaney could say that stuff, and has. What sense does it make to have another candidate trading in liberal-lite policies and don’t-run-in-the-hallways politics? There is one significant reason: the Obamas want him to. 

You can read the rest of Holmes' piece laying out why he believes the Obamas are behind this daffy idea that is more likely to create new problems than diminish them for getting the goddamned Republican-fascists out of office.  

Several times I asked how much of a price having Barack Obama as president Democrats and the country had to pay.   And anyone who denies that having him as president cost us is lying.   Obama was never a liberal in the classic American sense of the word, an egalitarian with tendencies to do for the least among us, is an elitist who never set foot in a public school as a student, who was reluctant to fight for the bill that will be considered his best legacy, the ACA "Obamacare" to those who wanted to harness the racist backlash to his color and name.   I could go down the entire history of Barack Obama in public office, in the Illinois Senate, in the United States Senate, as President and demonstrate that he was guaranteed to be what he turned out to be, a mediocre Democratic president who was capable of inspiring personal loyalty and adoration based on tropes of Jack Kennedy style lore but who was notably more interested in gaining the admiration of Republicans than of Democrats, far less interested in rallying the Democratic base on behalf of other Democratic candidates down the ticket.  I still hear grumbling about the refusal of his campaign to share information and resources from Democratic politicians and workers. 

Holmes notes that Obama has pushed Duval Patrick before and that he and his wife have held back on endorsing any of the other host of centrists in the race, including, notably, the man still riding on his coattails,  Joe Biden.  

So far in 2020, the Obamas have studiously avoided anything that vaguely looked like a public endorsement of any of the current candidates. If they are behind the sudden re-emergence of Deval Patrick on the national scene, it would surprise practically nobody. After all, the former president is no fan of the Sanders-Warren wing of the field, and his former vice president is wet tinder, and the idea of passing over a group of experienced woman and minority candidates in favor of a 38-year-old white mayor of a mid-sized city can’t be sitting well, either. If anyone can find another way the Patrick candidacy makes sense, I’d like to hear it.

I think Holmes is looking for the wrong kind of reason for it,  I think it's obvious that Obama is looking to relive his personal glory days vicariously through Patrick, a man who in many ways is like Obama - race certainly not an insignificant part of that.   But it is his biography which, as soon as he was sent through the A Better Chance program to Milton Academy mirrors Obama's prep-Ivy story.  I won't touch the fathers abandoning both of them, though it is another curious parallel.   

I think the parallels wouldn't stop there.  If the notably less attractive Patrick did become president I think we could look for the same self-made weaknesses with which Barack Obama pissed away the best hand a president had been given since Johnson's landslide of 1964, something which Johnson used to change the face of America, without which neither Obama nor Patrick would have had the careers they have had.  Obama didn't grow much in office in terms of political skill or savvy,  he was always reluctant to take on the Republicans in any hardball manner - considering how much of Obama's thinking is structured through competitive sports, it's odd that he showed none of that fighting spirit once inaugurated.  Hell, he started giving the store away during the transition in 2008.   I will guarantee you that in Duval Patrick, you would have the same kind of president.  Holmes' noting what Patrick has done after his governorship should tell you exactly why that would be. 

I think the best thing the Obamas could do would be to fade into the background and stay out of the role of king making.  He has nothing to offer the next Democratic President except as an example of how to not do it. 

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Saturday Night Radio Drama Encore - Katie Hims - Listening To The Dead

This is a five-part cycle of related plays about a family of people with psychic powers that are a mixed blessing.  It's very good.   I posted a play by Katie Hims once in the past (can't locate it off hand, technical trouble) but these are very different and very good.  I'm not very familiar with her work but I think she is quite a good playwright.    I'll be posting more of her work,  I think. 

My illness has flared up so I'm not feeling up to looking for a new play to post.   Since I just posted these last Wednesday and it is five plays, after all, here it is for those who might come of a Saturday looking for the weekly play post. 

Forgot I Said That - Good Time To Say It Again

Friday, May 26, 2017

You First Amendment Absolutist Types

Explain to me why the slandered, libeled and sadistically tortured family of Seth Rich shouldn't be able to sue that lying, amoral, mouldy dog turd of a man, Roger Stone, into destitution?  

By Their Fruits You Will Know Them But Their Enthusiasms Will Give You A Clue As To What Those Will Be In The Meantime

If I had the time, and it would take at least as long as my investigations into the real nature of Darwinism has,  I would look at the history of the secularization of the college-credentialed population of the United States, concentrating, especially, on the shift from the clearly Christianity based traditional American liberalism of the 18th and, especially, 19th century to the secular, atheist, anti-religious, materialist "left" that increasingly took the universities and scribbling professions and then became ubiquitous and dominated even as it was a total and complete flop, a hindrance to progress and the discrediting of what should be the most natural of cultural and political orientations in a democracy, that traditional liberalism that comprised the abolitionist movement, the movement to expand the franchise to women, that was an early and major force in the ending of wage slavery and for the elevation of poor and working people.  Virtually every bit of progress that was made - along with some missteps - was the work of the traditional American egalitarian liberal tradition, not the sciency, materialist "left".

I pointed out the other day the rather shocking fact that for much of its history the academic-materialist-pseudo-scientific "left" has either been peopled with or made accomodation with people who held up some of the worst and most murderous tyrants in human history as heroes if not models to be emulated.   That isn't something that started with the idiot Marxists, it has been endemic to the anti-religious, pseudo-scientific left from its founding.   There are still idiots on the "left" who worship the memory of the Jacobins, who presided over the enormous violence of the Reign of Terror and even more enormous violence outside of Paris.  The idiocy of American so-called leftists worshiping that bunch of gangsters - them turning on each other in a gang war that makes those in the mid-20th century mob look like a minor event is a dead giveaway - is, perhaps, done in the ignorance that the Jacobins were a bunch of affluent, sexist thugs who were always in it for themselves.   But the knowledge of their violence and their total incompetence at governance is certainly typical of those who the English language, secular,atheist left have championed over and over again.   I have suspected that it is their atheism and pseudo-scientific claims that have bent the idiots of our time to liking them, but I think that ignores the violence, scores and scores of millions of murders, the uniform violation of equality and rights - even as they make such things their slogans - are obviously as attractive to the cafe, bookstall and lecture stand lefties as anything else about them.   

The secular left of today is a pathetic shell of what it was during the last major period of progress roughly ending in the last years of The Reverend Martin Luther King's life, it was brought to grief largely through its enemies tying it to the idiocy of the secular, academic, play-left and the campaign against religion that was ubiquitous among those of influence in academia, in the media, on the courts. Their most lofty of secular principles have worked, in the past half-century and longer to the benefit of the Republican-fascists who have brilliantly harnessed backlashes against the secularizing Supreme Court rulings as they have the white supremacist backlash and regional resentments which TV and Hollywood had such a huge role in fostering and promoting.   

Some of that backlash was bound to happen as real progress towards real equality and democracy was pushed but a lot of it was provoked in gratuitous actions taken and, even more so, words said by secular, atheist, materialist academics and others.   The cost to the real left and those it could benefit of the stupid and useless campaign to keep town property free of manger scenes is about the most absurd - if those had ben tolerated the Aussie smut peddelers' hired help at FOX wouldn't have been able to make hay over a "war on Christmas" and, among other things that have resulted from such wastes of time and effort,  I suspect the Supreme Court would be somewhat less likely to be dominated by fascists who are perfectly willing to overturn those rulings and to destroy egalitarian democracy.   No doubt the ACLU types would think that was worth risking to keep Baby Jesus off of the town hall lawn. 

There was more progress made before there was so much "First Amendment" purity about.  As I've pointed out before, when the production code was in effect they managed to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills into law, they were able to create Medicare and Medicaid and a host of other great equalizers.  The GI Bill and Social Security came in well before the ACLU became influential,  Truman made that enormous leap in equality by integrating the military.  I will grant that in the meantime we have had LGBTQ rights advance, though that would probably have happened faster if the Republican-fascists hadn't been able to dominate the Supreme Court due to Republican-fascists winning elections.

I think the idiocy of the secular-left pursing the gratuitous line of symbolic anti-Christian legal cases is a symptom of the real motives of the secular-pseudo-scientific left which are as at odds with egalitarian democracy as is given away, even more so, by their either being enormous fans of anti-demoratic ideologies, Marxism, Darwinism*, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Jacobinism, etc.  The secular-left is not any left that will be useful for the struggle for egalitarian democracy, they will always cost us a lot more than they produce and what they are likely to produce won't be egalitarian democracy, it will suck.    


And about that LGBTQ progress, a lot of that came about because the kids and friends of the wealthy came out.   That's one of the things about us, we are part of every class and every ethnic group.  If we had been exclusively poor and people of color, it wouldn't have happened at all.   We would be as ground down by the fascists and as much a second thought as poor people and members of unliked minority groups always are.   I might appreciate the strides in equality, I'm a lot less happy that as that happens it doesn't extend equally to LGBTQ people of color, who aren't affluent or middle class or have aspirations to be, it certainly hasn't made up for the inequality of LGBTQ people who are Women.  Especially Women of Color

*  Darwin, himself, supported the book in which his friend and colleague Ernst Haeckel said that Darwinism didn't support socialism or democracy, it supports an aristocratic form of government.  I'm not going to ignore that, especially as the passage in the book, a political interpretation that Darwin, himself, wholeheartedly endorsed presents the secular-lefty with more than one problem with his ideological pretenses.

Besides, Darwinism, the theory of natural selection—which Virchow aimed at in his denunciation, much more especially than at transformation, the theory of descent—which is often confounded with it—Darwinism, I say, is anything rather than socialist! If this English hypothesis is to be compared to any definite political tendency—as is, no doubt, possible—that tendency can only be aristocratic, certainly not democratic, and least of all socialist. The theory of selection teaches that in human life, as in animal and plant life everywhere, and at all times, only a small and chosen minority can exist and flourish, while the enormous majority starve and perish miserably and more or less prematurely. The germs of every species of animal and plant and the young individuals which spring from them are innumerable, while the number of those fortunate individuals which develop to maturity and actually reach their hardly-won life's goal is out of all proportion trifling. The cruel and merciless struggle for existence which rages throughout all living nature, and in the course of nature must rage, this unceasing and inexorable competition of all living creatures, is an incontestable fact; only the picked minority of the qualified "fittest" is in a position to resist it successfully, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish miserably. We may profoundly lament this tragical state of things, but we can neither controvert it nor alter it. "Many are called but few are chosen." The selection, the picking out of these "chosen ones," is inevitably connected with the arrest and destruction of the remaining majority. Another English naturalist, therefore, designates the kernel of Darwinism very frankly as the "survival of the fittest," as the "victory of the best." At any rate, this principle of selection is nothing less than democratic, on the contrary, it is aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word. If, therefore, Darwinism, logically carried out, has, according to Virchow, "an uncommonly suspicious aspect," this can only be found in the idea that it offers a helping hand to the efforts of the aristocrats. But how the socialism of the day can find any encouragement in these efforts, and how the horrors of the Paris Commune can be traced to them, is to me, I must frankly confess, absolutely incomprehensible.

No matter how much they want to ignore it, the theory of natural selection, Darwinism, is born out of one of the most disgusting anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic of economic claims made by Malthus, it can't be made compatible with equality - its engine is inequality - it can't be made democratic - its soteriological scheme is based on the powerful destroying those with less power - it is certainly not compatible with socialism.   You have to be a total idiot to not understand that you can have one or the other but you can't have both.   Our secular-left is that stupidThey've suckered a lot of religious people who should know better into going along with that self-defeating faith.


Friday, November 15, 2019

More On Grifting Hallelujah Hucksters And The Grifters In Black Robes Who Work Hand In Glove With Them

Noticed that part of a paragraph seems to have gotten knocked off yesterday so I've decided to finish it and extend it here.  


The very same legal establishment that claims to be incompetent to tell the difference between a crook who fleeces the flock instead of caring for it, one who then sells it off for slaughter at a profit and someone who tries to follow The Law, the Prophets, the Gospel,  etc.  have no problem in deciding the most obscure, complex, arbitrary issues of contract and business law in which who is lying is often of little interest to the judges and, especially, the "justices" who rule on them.  But when it comes to the difference between Paula White and servants of the poor, they claim to be incompetent to make that distinction.  The 18th century "enlightenment" is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of human culture.   The more I fact check the claims made on behalf of it and its main figures, the more of a fraud it turns out to be.  That fraud is the source of much of our trouble because it is the ruling ideology, today.  Exposing its fraudulence is necessary.  

I think that we have a right for egalitarian democracy to favor those things which promote equality, especially economic equality, equal justice before the law and the common good.   I think We The People have a right to laws and a government that do not empower gangsters, thugs, crooks and haters.  I can see absolutely no good to a legal regime that proclaims there is a level playing field that actually gives such gangsters, thugs, crooks and haters an advantage for them to harm other people, groups of people, all of us.  The legal system that we inherited from the English is full to the top of advantages to such gangsters, etc. it was developed by them, for them, maintained for their advantage and cloaked in a con job of lofty language that turned such permissions into principles.  Its equality is the kind of equality that makes it illegal for a pauper and a billionaire to sleep under a bridge.   Its few lapses, decisions granting equality are noteworthy through their relative rarity when it's the privileging of the wealthy and powerful that should be the noteworthy, stopped and punished aberrations.  

The history of the Supreme Court of the United States is full of such ideally aberrant instances of injustice.  We have been suckered into allowing this to continue for more than two centuries, now.  They are the source of some of the worst enabling of the enemies of equality an democracy, privileging the billionaire oligarchs.   The Senate, the least democratic of the, now, elected branches of government just tipped the 2nd Circuit to the control of such servants of gangsters and thugs with one of the worst appointments to a major position of power in the federal judiciary in its history.   

I think that the law should define religion for the purposes of such things as tax exemption by their service to the poor, not by their service to the rich.  Educational institutions that serve poor children instead of the children of millionaires and billionaires are the ones that deserve benefits, the ones that serve the super rich should be taxed on the basis of them being the conferrers of status that they are.   No "church" that provides its "pastor" with a jet or an expensive car or a luxurious accommodation should be considered a church for purposes of taxation or a hands-off treatment by the government.  The corruption of the clergy in so many European countries should have clued the aristocrats who wrote the Constitution that this kind of thing would happen here under the wording of the First Amendment but they don't seem to have put much thought in what they passed in the so-called Bill of Rights.   There is no reason at all for us to ignore the lessons of life under that 18th century sloppiness, there is no reason for us to feel inhibited from arguing the issues because some of them are potentially thorny - most of them are blindingly obvious.  

The Catholic Church would greatly benefit from the hierarchs, the bishops, the cardinals, etc. getting out of the obscenely luxurious digs a lot of them live in, out of the luxury that some of them relish and to follow the rules that Jesus set out, on foot,  no purse, no shoes, only one outfit, depending on the charity of those they serve in what they are going to eat and where they're going to sleep - and I don't mean they stay with the richest Catholic in town.   Much of the scandal that has plagued the Catholic Church, much of what discredits it is directly a result of the kind of shit that Samantha Bee correctly pointed to in the con-job of Paula White.   The same could be said about many other alleged preachers of the Gospel of Jesus who have absolutely no intention of following the rules he set up for what they've turned into their profession.  I don't see any reason for us to pretend such fat cats are the same as those who serve the least among us.  The judges, justices and lawyers who claim to serve justice are as hypocritical and there is no reason for us to pretend they are any less corrupt than the corrupt clergy. 

Thursday, November 14, 2019

HOW DARE YOU! THE ACLU blah, blah . .. blah, blah

In his closing argument Wednesday, Roger Stone’s lawyer, Bruce Rogow, told the jury that there is really nothing to the government’s case against his client. “Much of this case, you have to ask, ‘So what?'” Rogow said.

Prosecutors offered an answer on Wednesday. Assistant US Attorney Michael Marando bluntly asked jurors to reject Rogow’s dismissal.

“So what? So what?” Marando asked, with what seemed like real indignation. “If that’s the state of affairs that we’re in, I’m pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters, okay.”

"The great ACLU", "the progressive ACLU" . . .  You'd think the ACLU was God the way you guys go on about it.  I say what the ACLU gives it takes away far, far more. 

Mr. Rogow has served as a consultant to lawyers and legal aid organizations, and as an expert witness on attorneys’ fees; has lectured to judges and lawyers; writes, and has been President of the Legal Aid Society of Broward County, Florida, and Special Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida

From his faculty CV which I have to say, is ridiculously long and detailed.  Bit full of himself, I'd say.  

Considering what Roger Stone is known to have done, by his own bragging admission, who he did it for and on behalf of, any lawyer who could say "so what" about it is the definition of a scumbag.   Lots of the ones who have worked at the ACLU have fit into that definition.  

Text And Commentary: It’s Paula’s White House

I'd started writing a response to someone who had a hissy over my last post over free speech absolutism when I listened to this and realized the exact same principle of 18th century enlightenment bull shit was the basis of why Paula White and the latter day Mammonists are allowed to lie and cheat and steal and dupe the desperate, the vulnerable and the just plain numb, that we pretend the law, judges, etc. are incapable of distinguishing lies from the truth, con-men like Paula White from Catholic Worker or the UCC and other churches that run food-pantries, soup kitchens, clothes and, sometimes, when they are set up for it, house the homeless, and do literally the opposite of what these TV hallelujah peddlers do. 

The very same legal establishment that claims to be incompetent to tell the difference between a crook who fleeces the flock instead of caring for it, then sells it off for slaughter at a profit and someone who tries to follow The Law, the Prophets, the Gospel,  etc.  have no problem in deciding the most obscure, complex, arbitrary issues of contract and business law in which who is lying is often of little interest to the judges and, especially, the "justices" who rule on them.  But when it comes to the difference between Paula White and servants of the poor, they claim to be incompetent to make that distinction.  The 18th century "enlightenment" is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of human culture.   

I suspect the churches wouldn't like to revisit the "Congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion. . " part of the First Amendment but this kind of thing damages them a lot more than taking a chance on preventing this kind of massive grift.  Any more honestly considered legitimate church which would have their activities seriously questioned by any laws preventing something like this swindle from being allowed probably shouldn't be doing something, as well.   I know the Catholic Church would gain enormously in credibility from divesting itself from a large part of its property and activities* That's an enormous scandal within the Church as well as outside of it.  Its totally laudable activities are overshadowed by that scandal,  the Catholic Church is a house divided over that.  

I would criticize one thing that was said by Samantha Bee, much church owned property is subject to taxation, though not enough is.  And a lot of it should be.  But one thing I'd do is take the tax exempt status from any so-called religious organization that doesn't make service to the least among us their primary financial activity.   I don't have terribly well developed ideas on that but I don't think any organization that collects large amounts - or small - of money as charitable contributions should be keeping its figure heads in luxury.   

I will also point out that what you say about religions as tax exempt organizations you can also say about many atheist and non-religious secular tax exempt organizations.  Singling out religion in that regard is the habit of those in the media and having college-credentials but that's pretty cowardly, considering religion is one of the least powerful sectors of modern culture.   I'd include the prep-university system, secular as well as those parts of it run by religious organizations.  Education is more a commodity than a public good among the rich and powerful.  They use it to steal and rob and shaft the poor, often by going into the legal and political professions.  As can be seen all through the Republican-fascist establishment, the product turned out by those schools are doing more to hurt people than even the likes of Paula White. 

* I wonder how Creighton University's trustees and administrations actions in regard to fossil fuel matches up against Pope Francis' great essay,  Laudato Si.  The Jesuits aren't the only ones who should seriously reform their activities in the education business but they sure as hell are among the worst offenders in the United States.  
Lingering illness.   They don't think it was tick borne anymore but they don't know what it is.  I'm figuring it's a new allergy that I didn't have before - one of those great benefits of getting old they never told me about.  If so, bring on the snow and see if that covers it.   I'm hoping to post more, later.  

I'm Sure I'll Watch This One Over And Over Again - Thank You Representative Peter Welch

The Cardinal Bernard Law of the Republican House Leadership, their second ex-creepy wrestling coach from the mid-west in leadership,  Jim Jordan is a goddamned liar (he lied shamelessly  several times on live TV yesterday) and he's not very bright.  He's a dumb jock, and I don't apologize to jocks who aren't dumb when I say that.  Most jocks are self-aggrandizing right wingers.  The ones who aren't must have noticed that about their team mates.   Sports build character, unfortunately, mostly it encourages egomania and snobbish gang behavior.   Generally at the expense of the public.   

What is it about Republicans and the jocks they expect to lead them to victory?  Especially a wrestling coach?  After Denny Hastert?  The pedophile rapist that the "family values" party made the Speaker?   What must count as one of the creepiest and most blatantly constructed "legit" schemes to come up with letting guys grope other guys in public?  Wrestling is creepy, I remember back when I was in high school everyone suspected the wrestling coach really got off of watching boys grope each other, what was called "enthusiasm" on his part.   Well, that's one way to put it.  

Jim Jordan will always be "singlet sniffer" to me.   He deserves it. 

Update:  Apparently my dissing Jim Jordan has set someone off.   Straight boy man crush, who knew?  

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Wednesday Night Radio Drama Special - Katie Hims - Listening To The Dead

This is a five-part cycle of related plays about a family of people with psychic powers that are a mixed blessing.  It's very good.   I posted a play by Katie Hims once in the past (can't locate it off hand, technical trouble) but these are very different and very good.  I'm not very familiar with her work but I think she is quite a good playwright.    I'll be posting more of her work,  I think. 

On Listening To Noam Chomsky In A Recent Interview

The idiot play-left seem to think that they own "more speech" and that "more speech" is guaranteed to be the last, fact-based, pro-democratic last word.   Well, any "more speech" which they answer my arguments with is already there and that "more speech," as magnified by the free-mass-media, owned by the corporations and funded by billionaire gangsters, as freed-to-lie by the idiot civil-libertarians of the post-war period is always going to swamp the pathetic little bit of "more speech" which tells the often unattractive truth, which, not having access to the tactics of con-man salesmanship, is guaranteed to fail far more often than it will succeed.   

"More speech" is a slogan of the idiot, failed secular left which had their greatest and most enduring success in pushing that lie-enabling line of court rulings which find their greatest champions among todays neo-Nazis, white and male supremacists, Republican-fascists, the poeple who are in the pay of the dicatator of Russia and the American billionaires who have wet dreams of reproducing here what he has done in that benighted land.   Putin came to power and remains there largely through the media, he is far better at using his "more speech" than those who want democracy in Russia have - the ones he hasn't killed yet.  

I love dear old Noam but he shares in that mass delusion of the English language left.  There is no one who has benefitted from it more in the United States than the most powerful man in the free press,  the Australian-Brit smut peddler and fascist Rupert Murdoch who co-owns the brain of Donald Trump and has more exclusive ownership of Americans who he indoctrinates with his "more speech" made ever more though money being made into free-speech as the ACLU supported.  And old Noam is pretty much the smartest of them.   The drop off is fast and hard after him. 

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Today In Irony

What's funny about the assumption that when I talked about areas of cities and rural areas in which there are no civil authority or civil services I was talking about people of color, the Eschatots reveal THAT THAT IS HOW THEY THINK, NOT HOW I DO.  Maybe if they'd read what I said they'd understand that, but I doubt it.  They aren't great readers and care nothing for seeing if they know what they're talking about. 

One of the places I think of when I think of that is a place two towns away from here which is notoriously violent and scary,  which is about as lily white as a Woody Allen movie or as an Eschaton convention would be.  I suspect that the lily white, largely affluent rump of regulars at Eschaton have no real experience of poor people who come in every color and live in cities, suburbs and rural areas. Lots of people in rural areas suffer from lack of civil services including police protection. LOTS OF PEOPLE OF COLOR LIVE IN RURAL PLACES AS WELL AS WHITE PEOPLE.  

Police PROTECTION is a right of everyone on an equal basis.  I'd recommend the affluent white guys and gals of Eschaton try living without it and find out how much they like it, only such people are never much without it.   The problem with the cops in too many places is that they aren't representative of the communities they police and, as we are finding, too many police departments in the United States are in deep need of, in effect, deNazification.  I would break up the protection racket that the police unions are,  I've become convinced that they aren't really unions.  If they want unions that are real unions, they could have them.  The police are notoriously under trained.  I think it's insane to give people a gun and the permission to shoot people without them having at least two years of training INCLUDING TRAINING IN THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF ANY DECENT SOCIETY, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.   I learned about that from watching the cops and their organization in Boston among the most flagrantly racist and fascist leaning in the country.  

What I favor is that people get the civil services they have a right to no matter how much money they have or where they live.  Which is why I said what I said.  Police protection is only one aspect of that.  

Eschaton is a rump of liars.  It has been for well over a decade.   They are a symptom of why the play-left is a loser and always will be and why we have to dump them.  

Monday, November 11, 2019

Do I Look Like I Care?

Do I look like I care? 

Update: I don't care what gets said at Eschaton.  They are aged, no-account affluence. 

"How Can You Claim That Marxists Are The Same As Fascists?"

Well, you might notice I've stopped using the word "ideology" nearly as much as as I used to because I had the insight that for the most part the ideologies were a smoke screen, a cover of what is treated as respectable for what is, in reality, a desire to gain power and rule like a gangster crime mob, in almost every instance, Marxist, (pseudo)socialist, "progressive" "moderate" conservative, far-right, fascist, Nazi, . . . to steal and amass wealth and the kind of power that anti-and non-democratic governments are.  I don't bother with the ideological cover-ups I just identify the underlying rot for what it is, gangsterism.  

I think that my insight into the true nature of all non-egalitarian non-democracy is enormously successful in cutting away the puzzling and continual phenomenon of opponents of egalitarian democracy far-right, right, "moderate" pseudo-liberal and pseudo-left, claiming to favor one thing and doing the exact opposite.  It started with the observation of how many Marxists, Trotskyites, etc. became fascists by taking a tiny little baby-step instead of a huge vault over a chasm that was imaginary, which wasn't there at all.  

That imaginary chasm was asserted by the ideological cover story, it was never real.  The fact that such ideologically allegedly different things amassed the same results, millions of murders, uniform oppression, terror wielded by governments over people they ruled, a class of wealthy oligarchs - even when their ideology was supposed to guarantee against those, etc.  was what tipped me off.   But I had to stop listening to the academic authorities who were in on the con job as much as the gangsters, themselves, to see it.   

Any alleged scholar who can sit there and ignore millions of corpses has to count as the most willfully blind alleged authority who has ever lived.  Those piles of corpses, those people oppressed and enslaved, etc, are the most important facts about such governments, they confirm the similarites between the ideologies that produce such results.  The claims about what they're going to do with the economy is a bull shit con job.   But our academic establishments focus on such bull shit instead of reality.  

They're not that different from the corporate media who focus on Trump's tweets instead of his crimes against humanity, just as they always do when it's Republican-fascists who are killing and oppressing people.   They're like Chuck Todd who can have Rand Paul on lying his head off and pretending that what Rand said was real instead of transparent lies.  They teach you to do that at places like George Washington University and as you advance in the "free press". 

A Thought During A Comment War With The Majority Report Fanboys

Witnessing the play left during my entire lifetime, especially in 2000 - 2019, it's clear to me that despite them being, almost to a person, college-credentialed, they are incapable of learning from experience as opposed to the clap trap bull shit that they read in play-lefty magazines and books and, more and more, hear on play-lefty media from play-lefties.   One of the conclusions I've reached from reading, hearing and discussing things with them since going online is that it's not a surprise that so many people who have been given the inevitably distorting view of life that you get from the way they've lived and been mis-educated would be incapable of learning from life as opposed to the propaganda they consume.  They have been taught that they have to have life interpreted to them by the kind of authority that regimen trains them to follow. 

I have long noticed how the brash, bold independent thinkers of the play-left (by their own assertion) - are most abjectly emotionally dependent on the affirmation of such authority figures.  Preferably ones with a PhD from the most established of private universities.  

That they are capable of buying into the crap that has failed, year after year, decade after decade, election cycle after election cycle, the crap such as is peddled, now, in the age of functional post-literacy,  in the debased online media run by the likes of Cenk and Sam and Michael and Ana, online and on the radio by the likes of Amy Goodman not to mention the like of a host of unreconstructed Marxists and anarchists who should have been scrapped in the 20th century is proof of what I said,  a real left, a realistic left who are interested in doing what is possible instead of insisting on what isn't possible have got to get shut of them.   They are lousy allies, and really crappy at politics.  Their ideologies, anti-democratic, are, thus, unsurprisingly unpopular with voters who have witnessed what their heroes produce when they get power* and are a permanent guarantee to not succeed in the United States or Canada or elsewhere where, bad as it can get, has not been as bad as where such gangsters rule.  

*  Anarchism can be seen in reality in any area of any large city or rural area where there is no civil authority and rule is by gangsters, drug dealers, pimps, etc.  Anarchism is the most absolutely stupid political ideology ever fantasized by idiots who live in writing chairs instead of reality.  I've never known a play-lefty who, when faced with that kind of reality of a lack of civil government, won't call the cops in sobbing terror to save them from the real life results of their pipe dreams.