Tea Party Patriots Attack Family Who Lost Daughter And Grandchild
A group called the Chicago Tea Party Patriots publicly heckled a grieving family and suggested that the couple fabricated their tragic story.
At a town hall held by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) on Nov. 14,, Dan and Midge Hough spoke about how they believed the death of their daughter-in-law and her unborn child were caused, in part, by a lack of health insurance.. Twenty-four-year old Jennifer was uninsured. According to her in-laws, she was not receiving regular prenatal care and was not properly treated when she got sick. She ended up in an emergency room with double pneumonia that developed into septic shock, had a heart attack, a brain bleed and a stroke. The baby died and Jennifer died a few weeks later.
Midge Hough was heckled by anti-reform crowd members. "You can laugh at me, that's okay," she said, crying. "But I lost two people, and I know you think that's funny, that's okay."
A local Tea Party organizer falsely claimed that the couple had made up the story and tried to justify the town hall behavior, according to the Southtown Star.
Catherina Wojtowicz, of Chicago's Mount Greenwood community, an organizer for a Tea Party splinter group, Chicago Tea Party Patriots, falsely claimed that the Houghs fabricated their story. In an e-mail, she called them operatives of President Barack Obama who "go from event to event and (cry) the same story." [...]
By Rachel Weiner THE HUFFINGTON POST (Los Angeles) Nov 23
74 comments:
I think the most succinct description I've seen of the tea-baggers is that they are 'anti-socialists'.
They seem to be unified around a visceral opposition of any definition of the word on a variety of very different grounds (eg patriotism, family-first groups, religious fervour, fiscal concern...) which aren't necessarily coherent.
It seems obvious that it is a stimulated movement of grassroots political activists (mirroring the economic stimulus) and designed to build a new political constituency to challenge Obama's dominance.
The obvious candidate to appeal to this base is Sarah Palin, but I sense the raw emotionality of the tea-baggers is not easily containable and could enable a new populist dark horse to emerge who would split the current Republican stitch-up.
I worry that the widespread institutional approval of the movement (from the corporate right-wing base - churches, media, industry, military, insular small towns) may have enabled the creation of a beast which it cannot tame and may end up swallowing the GOP organisation.
It would only take a capable, charismatic ideologue to symbolise and embody their aspirations and there'd be a true cult on the horizon.
I mean, reading US news there is a palpable sense of widespread loss about the economic position of the country and a desire to regain global dominance as the chosen country and their status as the greatest nation on Earth.
There are just so many echoes, amidst the 'it couldn't happen here' syndrome.
I think what you have both described so far looks like the BNP on a normal day, but sponsored by the bigots of the religious fundamentalists, and crossed with the Westboro Baptist 'Church' and the demonic Phelps clan. The influence of religion in the USA is very hard for a non US person to understand.
Interestingly (to me anyway), I have covered one such group on my own blog today, looking at the normal sounding Family Research Council, which appears to be a glorious name for yet another bunch of right wing religious bigots.
Is it any wonder that the USA is the most feared nation on earth nowadays, respected in the same way we respect the schoolyard bully? This never used to be so. The USA used to seem like a shining beacon of true democracy when I was not so many years younger. I'd like to see that again, and in my lifetime!
I can criticise the UK roundly, too. Successive governments here have encouraged the USA in its self appointed role as "Team America, feck yeah!" and allowed successive US Presidents to feel increasingly god-like.
So far Obama seems to be a voice of calm reason, though I am comparing him with the halfwit Bush, and the woman who shot Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer.
Englishmen with long memories for comedy will see similarities between Palin and Mrs Merton.
It has been so long since I've felt the urge to bait a liberal (it's just too easy to do, like shooting fish in a chamber pot) that I've decided to repost an answer I wrote to a letter to the editor in today's Natchez Democrat entitled "Community Must Value Education":
Careful, Troutman, the NEA has its eyes on people like you. How dare you suggest the latest leftist political philosophy distilled into classroom theory and the latest leftist political platform distilled into classroom application could offer a polluted educational field ripe for superfund cleanup?
Have you ever been to a re-education center Mr. Troutman? I have and I assure you the experience is not a pleasant one. Listen to this valuable advice: when the state board comes around asking for your advice, don't give it. What they are doing is ferreting out those who have not completely submitted to federal, ie, UNESCO, guidelines.
Creating a nation of uneducated consumers taught by government schools that help is just around the corner has been essential to the plan to bring America into the socialist family of nations otherwise known as the European Union, or the Holy Roman Empire, Part Deux. As proof of my assertion that this has been planned, can you please tell me what business other than franchisees of the Third Bank of the United States are allowed to enter the schools and hawk their credit products to captive audiences? This is both a Marxian and Hamiltonian wet dream; I imagine somewhere in Hell, in a pleasant piano bar, munching on spicy quiche, Karl and Alex are having a gay old time laughing at the success of their ambitions.
I would hate to hear your headless body has been found in an isolated area after an apparent suicide, my friend. These things are better spoken of at midnight in hallowed groves, not soapboxed in a newspaper calling itself, for some inexplicable reason, "The Democrat\".
I think I almost heard you advocate true local control of schools- did I, or am I mistaken? If so, that is a good dream, but it is going to be hard to carry out now that Hank Bounds has bound up all the 16th sections lands into state control most likely to be used to provide fodder for the next big investment bubble building in the carbon credit market- as unholy an alliance as that of Marx and Hamilton is this scheme, which tucks Al Gore and Kenny Boy into bed as neatly as Ozzy and Harriet, with the same attempt to legitimize and normalize de-development of the west as has been used in the drive to equate sodomy with God's commandment to go forth and multiply.
You are on the wrong side of the thin red-green line, Troutman.
You know, GW, I read that from top to toe and understood every single word. But I failed to understand most of the sentences. You seem to have used a lot of words to say very little that means anything to anyone but you because of the way you have arranged them on the sentences and paragraphs.
However, one thing I saw that offended me greatly was your rant about what you term as 'sodomy'. Of course I struggled to unwrap the meaning from the rant, but I think homosexuality upsets you in some way.
Let me tell you something with huge clarity: It upsets me too. I wish with all my heart that I was not homosexual, but I'm stuck with it, so I make the best of it, just like I would if I were left handed. I was raised as a happy little heterosexual and had every expectation of being a happy little heterosexual all my life, but that was not in the plan for me. So I'm a queer, a fag, a nancy boy, a poof. I dine at the downstairs restaurant, I am an uphill gardener. And, you know what? I hate bigots who have the dogmatic pomposity to tell me directly or by implication that I should be ashamed of myself.
That's you, sir. That's you.
Walk a mile in my moccasins before you dare to criticise me and people similarly differently blessed.
If you want to know what it's truly like being homosexual, which I somehow doubt from whatever it was that you ranted, just ask. I challenge you to ask. But I also challenge you to listen to the answer, and to absorb it.
Now I cannot change being homosexual. If you held a gun to my head, something you appear capable of form your rant, and ordered me to be attracted to women or die I'd have to die. It's not my fault, it's the way I was made. It would be like doing the same to you and ordering you to be attracted to men. You'd die, too.
People who express opinions like you have done marginalise and bully others. You, sir, are behaving like a bully. I don't care what your politics are, I care that you exhibit bigotry and think to befoul a decent blog with it.
Does homosexuality affect you?
Not in the least way.
But it affects me, and i find your remarks and self glorification of them greatly offensive.
Withdraw, sir, withdraw!
It is not homosexuality I am opposed to Mr. Trent, some of my best friends were gay; alas they've all either died of aids, hepatitis, shot themselves, or been murdered.
I agree being gay is not a blessing, not should it be a shame.
Yet, what I am opposed to is the political militancy of the groups that do more to harm the cause of people such as yourself who suffer society's censure by making such ridiculous demands as requiring the people to legislate that injecting semen into the anus has the same social benefit injecting it into the womb has; that the two are equal acts and should both be described as the sacred act of marriage.
I am aware that in many cultures homosexuality itself has been revered as a special gift of the gods, sacred in its own right and do feel that if our American culture could somehow work itself up into such an understanding then great good would be served; I direct you to the movie starring Meryl Streep as a nun at a boy's school for greater understanding.
As to your "withdraw, sir, withdraw", I assure you it is never overlong before I comply with the urgency you request. For further understanding of this I request you obtain and study a video called "But I'm a Cheerleader" about a lesbian cheerleader sent to a sexual re-education camp.
In this video, the Instructress of the camp, in one of the straightness training lessons, compliments the quick entry and withdrawal of one of the male students into one of the female, explaining that foreplay is not necessary for the male, that his job is to get in and get out as quickly as he may relieve himself.
Do not believe that I hold you in any sort of disregard because you are gay; I am well aware of the distress caused by being gay to some of my well loved friends who were never able to overcome the treatment society afforded them, and so ended their lives either through conscious acts or through over reckless living.
Say Tim, I'm planning the opening of a store to sell fine Italian leather fashions to compliment my Vespa rental business; there are currently some fabulous items availabe for women. I know they will sell well to my customers because riding a Vespa is all about seeing and being seen, and who wants to be seen looking less than their best?
As an equal opportunity renter and retailer, it strikes me that perhaps I could use a fashion consultant for the gay market.
How would you combine Vespas and fashion? What would make the average young gay man feel he was accessorized in such a way as to attract maximum admiration?
I suppose as well there is room for at least two lines here, one harder and more butch, and the other softer and more feminine- black leather mini-trenchcoats against pastel cordura; what do you think?
As a journalist GW, I cover both sides of the issue. To be fair, the views you espouse are pretty standard for the American Right. The reason I have discovered that the so-called militant groups exist is solely to protect human beings whose natural urges are same sex. For what ever reason, or maybe because there is a lack of reason, the American right and so called Christian leadership keep insisting that being a LGBT person is a choice, a behaviour, and is as easily changed as one's garments.
Well, science says otherwise as does an epoch time of humans populating the planet. Then there's this fact. Kids, young people, are getting murdered just because they are Gay or Lesbian or Bi or Transgendered. As recently as last week in Puerto Rico where a loving and gentle youth was not only murdered, but decapitated, dismembered partially, oh and then burned. Why? Yup, you guessed it.
I have steadily lost patience with the so called Christian leadership in the U. S. as they are no better than the Taliban with frightening similar results.
You can defend that crap all you want GW, I will just continue to shake my head, grief, and fume at the hypocrisy and hatred that the so called Christians attempt to cloak as love. Love? Yeah, right.
Folks like you don't want to hear the ugly truth that your so called loving God, despite the way you all portray him, is actually the most hateful and spiteful being on the planet. Millions of deaths have occurred in "his name."
Sorry GW, but I find that fact repulsive and also testimony that religion badly needs to be kept out of civic affairs.....
stereotypers ahoy!
Reconciling equality and diversity is a perpetual challenge which nobody who wants preferential treatment will ever accept.
Sexual orientation doesn't devolve simply down to the manner and consequence of the sexual act, rather it has just as much to do with the social context and culture within which it occurs.
'Queer' includes connotations of a political statement highlighting the perversity of conformist society, while 'gay' offers a reflexive reference of an individual attitude which is unburdened by or resists conformist pressures.
Elsewhere 'fag' and 'poof' create inferences of wider power relationships which traditional society has associated with certain value judgements. As far as I can tell 'nancy boy' correponds with inverted senses of tradition (cross-dressing etc).
The social anthropologist and linguist in me (if you don't mind me putting it that way) find it interesting how words which describe behaviours translate into separate (but overlapping) social identities and how this creates expectations which have secondary influences on the personality.
In the same way as 'woman' creates different expectations when it is used in conjunction with 'mother', 'daughter', 'sister', 'wife', 'lover' etc these terms are often manipulated in ways which feel oppressive.
We should be very careful about how the terms are used because unwanted attempts to constrain behaviour often have a detrimental effect.
But me, I'm just a goofy ape, so nobody need take seriously anything I have to say...
I have so far discussed only one pertinent issue pertaining to your post Mr. Trent. There are at least two others of interest to me, spurred by your malicious attack of my character and my views.
First, though I haven't read this article, the headline says it all "Tea Baggers Attack Family".
During our tax protests earlier this year when we used the theme of the Boston Tea Party to underscore our statement and the illustration of our discontent with the socialist policies of Washington Hamiltonians and Marxists drawn by our sending tea bags to those carpetbaggers and scalawags parking their fat asses in public office I and many of my more conservative and libertarian friends were shocked to learn that teabagging is a homosexual practice. This term, as used by PMSNBC, CBS, and ABC and every other liberal mouthpiece (the true communists, whom we have no quarrel with in substance, only in strategy, as they have not been fooled by the false paradigm presented by the Obama Fascist Imperialist Front, being intellectuals and not television consumers) so joyfully proclaimed, refers to the practice of one homosexual dangling his testicles upon the chin of another. One can only speculate as to exactly how this dangling is acheived, but one must suppose that at least in some instances the landscape viewed by the danglee must not be altogether pleasant; at any rate, these august "news" (fascist propaganda organs, and flacid organs at that, staffed by the limp-wristed and faint hearted who would fear more than the clergy the sight of the Black Russian Codpiece) appendages happily portrayed the tax protestors as this same sort of "tea bagger", homosexual danglers and danglees; in doing so the left showed its true colors, defaming both the homosexual practice as unsavory and the tax protestors as practioners of this unsavory act. It was of course just yet another case of liberal dishonesty described by Critical Legal Theorist Duncan Kennedy (an example of an honest intellectual liberal, who admits hiw theories are born of cynicism that man is capable of appreciating justice) as a dishonest attempt by liberals to both affirm and deny, at one and the same time, a particular point of view; whose simultaneous affirmation and denial somehow, to their weak minds, strengthens their cause.
By casting homosexuals as both unsavory and equal to heterosexuals, the liberal socialists keep the homosexual community divided against itself as well as against the straight community. Truth shows here; this is a fascist tactic that attempts to divide and conquer, to cut down the forest and strip its limbs before bundling them in the symbol of world fascism created by the Roman Empire, that bundle of sticks bound by cord and containing an axe: the many "sticks" under the iron blade of the state's axe.
So when you tar me for the mote of a few tongue and cheek comments you ignore the beam in your own eye that blinds you to the truth about your brand of postmodern liberalism- youk, sir, are a fascist supporter.
Withdraw, sir, withdraw; take back your storm troopers from Poland and the other 20 countries your movement has illegally invaded with your promise of a 1000 year reign of loving peace. Depart and leave lovers of freedom in peace; a free man seeks his own sustenance, a slave is dependent on others. You postmodernists are all slaves, and seek to make slaves of the rest of us. While in your gay sexual games it might be pleasing to play at being a slave, to have the genitals of another man rubbed on your face, in the real world it is an assault and an affront and I am likewise deeply offended.
Wriggle all you like. You chose and glorified your initial words. I'm not heading down your blind alleys, GW. "Some of my best friends are homosexual" eh. Well I wonder if they are your best friends now.
As for Vespas, Marty, and leather bags, the best thing to do to model one is to put one over your head, do up the zip, sit astride the machine with the engine running, open the throttle, drop the clutch and hang on.
Gravel rash makes a great fashion accessory for a stereotyper.
I suppose, Mr. Trent, that last comment about sterotypers applies as well to those narrow minded haters and hate-speechers who cast the right as always evil and greedy; the kettle calls the pot black and whistles the more loudly for its pent up steam, trying desperately to hide the foul aroma brewing inside while the pot is open for all to enjoy the savory
aroma of nutritious substance.
You are an arrogant ass, your blinders so well set as you plod down the path your fascist slaveowners have set you to toil upon that you cannot even conceive that perhaps I have had true friends who've suffered as and more than you.
I refer to my friend Lynn Sodani and his twin brother, both of whom died of aids, I refer to my friend Alex Rabb, child molestor and homosexual whore, not a churchgoer but willing enough to sevice the pentecostal and baptist preachers, the traveling gospel group, the itinerant insurance commissioner and school superintendant who in the dead of night sought the comfort of his mouth. I refer to my ex-wife, to her pimp Marty and to Marty's girlfriend; I refer to my ex-girlfriend Debbie whose body was as available to Marty's male customers as to Marty's female customers; I am not as ignorant as you think.
The situation is just that you ride at the forefront of a popular fascist movement, one that uses you as a bitch to breed more dogs of discontent in the world; your concerns are far from the concerns of those who give you the platform they put you for sale in the slave market.
You can't see this of course, for the slave is grateful for his tiny morsel of daily bread, while the free man knows the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Slaves are takers.
Kneel before the mighty sword pen of GW, Mr. Trent, and you will not be harmed. Retract your defamatory statements and your literary life may continue; resist and I shall cut you limb from limb until only your talking head remains combatant.
The violence of your psychology shows in your rash statements wishing me ill fortune, and in your aping of the head bagging practice of the world imperialists who render foreign nationals over the seas against all the laws of the common people of America and England. You are the same as they; you would blind and confuse me, hold me in captivity so the world may not know my plight, nor the mightiness of my arm as I smight the evildoer.
Little do you know that there is indeed a line of fine fashions recreating the wardrobes shown in the Italian movies of the fifties and sixties; I make no fun of homosexuals and their penchant for fashion. It would be not only foolish but against my nature for me to do so.
You may want to claim your gayness excuses the ignorance of your political stance, but that is not the case. Being gay is one thing, unavoidable, being a fascist masquerading as a socialist is something else entirely- wholly a matter of choice.
A descent into ad hominem attacks was inevitable the moment you lost the argument. What you cannot achieve by decent open discourse you seek to achieve by the power of your insults.
I find your behaviour amusing, offensive, and yet wonderfully irrelevant to civilised society.
hey, hey, the tone of this thread has descended somewhat.
And whenever that happens it usually indicates there is some confusion or regret going on on at least one side or other.
Identity issues (sexual, political or whatever) are intimately bound up with who we are, so they can give rise to some strong emotions - therefore unless we understand the reasons behind the way individuals use language we will never be able to avoid or resolve these kinds of conflicts.
Tim,
I have to pick you up on your use of the description 'right-wing' as both prescriptive and restrictive - which I know is not something you'd like yourself.
In my book 'left' and 'right' are relative terms so I avoid using them wherever possible.
As an avid political student I take it personally when such terms are misapplied, so the way political terms like socialist, liberal and fascist are bandied about is worrying.
GW,
I get the sense that you've a personal distaste for what they mean to you so I'd like to ask why - you might have some obvious answers, but please humour me.
In typical liberal fascist fashion, it was you who opened with ad hominem. Your knowledge of this term does not impress me; it is even less impressive than your writing skill and political views.
Shall I delineate each and every instance of your literary aggression, or will you save yourself the shame of public exposure?
Do you desire a public whipping? Are you a masochist as well as gay? Because I am just the one to whip you soundly and without mercy. Your laughter will turn to screams and cries for mercy quickly.
I will gladly humor you Mr. Oranjepan, but as you are the challenger you must first humor me.
In spite of repeated attempts to get one of you socialists on here to define the term socialism, not one of you has ever attempted it.
So, tell me, what is socialism politically, economically, and spiritually?
I will answer definition and essay in kind, and the rational, if there be any, among the blog's readers can judge the contest.
Oranjepan, I used the term to reflect common usage. I agree that bigotry is not confined to that popular usage, but the Family Research Council appears to me to be part of that area of the political spectrum. I am happy to be corrected.
As for the rants, GW, I am not interested. You have shown me what you are. You are irrelevant.
Now, if you will all pardon me, I must attend to the nurturing of un gatita bella who offers her soft neck to me, who recognizes the presence of a man among slaves, one whose sword is unsheated at will and deployed with skill and might. Ignore any cries for mercy you may hear coming from the bedchamber, la gatita merely purrs for more.
I'll come back later and see how this has progressed, and I will come back refreshed and ready.
A warrior who withdraws early from the field, Mr. Trent, and tells those he fights for of victory, is still defeated; you don't have the stamina for sustained combat. Surrender due to fatigue is still surrender, and qualifies me as victor.
You lose.
I thought you'd gone off do do something with an unsheathed sword. That I see you as an irrelevance means that and no more. You appear to be acting like a typical schoolyard bully, but those are irrelevant too.
Behaviour such as this is why the USA has become despised and also feared instead of respected. It is the most dangerous and most powerful nation on earth, and contains some of the least able to cope with that power.
I do go; I remain merely to point out to you that your last two ejaculations are weak indeed: you have soiled your own shoes. You may wish to have a literary and logic prostrate exam- there is perhaps too much pressure on the delivery canal.
I'm happy to oblige, but let me make it clear that I don't consider myself to be a 'socialist', nor do I self-describe as such.
I understand 'socialism' as a economic philosophy to be defined by the labour theory of value and as a political philosophy to be defined by ordering decisions according to the benefit of the masses (ie workers ownership and control of the means of production and distribution). Consequently it is widely associated with collectivism.
Historically established socialism is seen within the context of those countries which formally adopted it (using Marxist development of Hegelian analysis as the base model), however I am wary of the gap between theory and practice because every example was/is specific unto itself and doesn't fit neatly into any pattern.
Can we rise above the slanging match, please?
What is a loser and a victor anyway?
Triumph and disaster are but two imposters waiting to be overturned, as are all things with time.
GW,
I can tell you're trying to be witty, but you're bludgeoning your single line of attack most unceremoniously.
I'm sure you can keep it up for hours at a time, but the occassional change of tack would be more disarming (as well as a refreshing change from the oppressive seediness).
Sometimes it can get you out of a very sticky patch to turn the other cheek... if that isn't too lurid a metaphor.
My, my, you naughty boys, one and all---what a fuss you have made, and I can't see that anyone is changing anyone's mind. I proporse that enough has been volleyed back and forth, but instead of a nice group hug, why don't we have a contest?
Years ago, after an enjoyable afternoon with Blog Madame Eliz and her husband, chuckling over a book of Gay Limericks, I was inspired to pen one of my own for Mel's birthday. I was never happy with the last line, so I invite all you clever lads and girlies to finish it for me:
"There once was a young man named Mel, oh!
Who wasn't a smooth-bottomed fellow!
His bum was so hairy,
That every old fairy,
Cried,"---------------------!"
(Fill in the blank! Winner will receive a fabulous prize---probably a realistic marshmallow replica of a hot-dog in a bun.)
I always wanted to meet a camp follower. Now we have a hors du combat. I think I'll leave your limerick alone. I've seen quite enough gratuitous smut from GW to last me a lifetime.
It never ceases to amaze me how people associate homosexuality with the penis and the anus. There is a huge population of gay men who never engage in anal sex, and a huge population of heterosexual couples who do.
So, while I see your limerick as well meant, and I would normally be content to go through the entire limerick repertoire of "That was a terrible song" with you, I will not take up the challenge this time.
Yes, limericks are hard, aren't they?
I expect you missed that point on purpose.
Oh, of course: and by about as wide a margin as you missed mine!:):)
"There once was a young man named Mel, oh!
Who wasn't a smooth-bottomed fellow!
His bum was so hairy,
That every old fairy,
Cried,"---------------------!"
"that's best left for Bi-Harry"
or, "my what a heavenly rarity!"
Well, my alleged literary man with a mighty pen, you seem ignorant about limericks.
The rhyming scheme is that lines 1,2 and 5 rhyme with each other, and lines 3 and 4 rhyme with each other separately.
So, nought out of ten, try harder.
Apparently GW, especially given your escalating attacks on Tim Trent and the rhetoric you've employed, I can see that you are indeed a card carrying member of the American far right.
Rather than engage in simple civil discussion, you've let your ill-informed bias and bigotry take over as you rant and rave about homosexuals.
Apparently, the truth is that you not only do have close friends that are LGBT, given the way you have savagely disparaged Tim, you also are a prime example of what those of us in the Press Corps call an example of "the ugly righteous American."
Your agenda GW sounds eerily like that of the Nazi's in depression era Germany. Only in this case, society's ills are due to LGBT people eroding "societal values."
You also cannot take critique of your twisted and quite frankly, sick logic. I actually could see you in a modern version of a SS uniform as most of you so-called patriotic types would rather be living in a totalitarianism based political system. Oh, FYI GW, the U. S. is not a Theocracy just yet..It is luckily still non-secular.
So, I guess that all that is left to said is that congratulations on your magnificent display of hate filled speech. Ugly Americans like you are the PRECISE reason that the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act was passed.
But hey, pray continue, I need to step out to get some popcorn to much on while I watch you make an arse of yourself. This is excellent entertainment. I'll be back I'd wager.
Now Brody, be nice to him. You see you can;t call him a Nazi because he already used that on me a while back with some sort of bizarre comment about Poland.
I wonder if I ought to explain to him what being a persecuted minority really is, and maybe we should force him to visit the Holocaust Museums, and see for himself the awful things that were done in the name of racial purity.
But the challenge is that he doesn't listen, though he hears people speaking, and he doesn't see, though his eyes perceive shape and form.
Not for him the awful sinking feeling of being herded onto cattle trucks and shipped off to be worked to death or gassed, because he is the one who stands with the loaded gun herding human beings onto the trucks.
The thing that interests me is I hear Lady MacBeth in so much of what he says. That must be a very difficult thing for him.
No, no, GW, you see, a limerick's last line must rhyme with the first two---so you'd need a rhyme for "fellow." I applaud your effort, but it's back to the quill pen for you, me lad. See what you can do with "bellow," Jell-O," "cello," even "Pirandello" or "Othello.":):)
Keep your lance aloft, Sir Tilt-a-lot! You make as much sense as anyone here...
I posted this hastily (hence the term "post-haste"?) that I didn't notice an earthshaking historical event: TT and I agreed on something! He's right about the rhyme scheme, sweet GW...also, while I'm layin' down the Law and the Prophets on poesy, no "cheat rhymes" are allowed. My original last line ended in the word "Vel-cro" which...wasn't quiiiiiite right, and as we say in literary circles:):), if it ain't quite right, it's WRONG.
Those first two attempts were just to throw you others off guard- prepare for the coup d'etat.
"I'll stick my arm in to the elbow"
You are going to stick your arm in a cup of tea up to the elbow? Are you on something? Is this another smutty metaphor you are regaling us with?
Please, Mr. Trent, don't pretend you don't know about fisting and gerbils and Elbow Grease. I don't see how the gay limerick writer missed it.
If you tell me you don't know about these things I'll think you are just confused and not gay; perhaps you are one of those guys who just wants to be trendy. Maybe next year instead of being gay you will be Norwegian, or a belly dancer, or whatever the hot new thing is.
Profoundly thankful though I am not to know about such unsavory practices, I must note that "elbow" is funny, but does not in fact rhyme with "fellow." Still, you are currently the front runner in the limerick sweepstakes, as the sole entrant!:):)
A gay Norwegian belly dancer? Ohhhhh my, I feel another limerick coming on:
"A gay belly dancer from Oslo,
Wished that his partner weren't so slow.
He said to him, 'Bjarni!
Iss hard to stay harny
When you going mo and mo mo slow!"
GW, I do know you are playing a part that you think is amusing. That part and the way you play it reveals more about you than you can possibly imagine. Your media style stereotypes and vulgarity and total defensiveness remind me very much of someone who is concealing things from himself.
Perhaps you would do a favour to everyone here and remove the vulgarity from your future comments. You can be perfectly offensive without them.
But the subject matter, that of giving grave offence, remains unacceptable. Instead of using common sense you have created a bar room brawl. You know you are in the wrong. The part you are playing will not back down, but I suspect that there may be a real person behind the mask, one who is deeply ashamed. That person can back down with honour.
Mr. Trent, I, and I am sure several others must have noticed, is that it is you who accuse and defame.
It is extremley obvious to me that what you are doing is projecting your own personality onto me; that is okay, many are prone to do so with others.
You seem to be of the opinion, and I wait for you to confirm my opinion, that your gayness gives you a special pass for your overt and covert hostility that makes the world a cold and hateful place for you. Take some of that socialist vacation time and go down the the Caribbean and go native; a little rhumba and cumbia would loosen you up-
!Cumbia mayra!
Atrevete-te-te salte del closet
Despatate, quitate en el esmalte
Deja de teparte, que nadie v a retartate,
Levantate, ponte hyper
Prendete, sacale chispas al starter!
Prendete en fuego como un lighter
Sacudete el sudor como si fueras un wiper.
Que tu eres callejera, streetfighter!
Camba esa care de seria,
Esa cara de intelectual, de enciclopedia.
Que te voy a inyectar con la bacteria,
Pa' que des vuelta como machina de feria Senorita intelectual.
Atrevete-te-te salte del closet
Despatate, quitate el esmalte
Levantate, ponte hyper
"Hello" deja el "show", subete la minifalda hasta la espalda.
Subetela, deja el "show", Mas alta.
Que ahora vamos a bailar par toda la jarda.
Mira, nene, quiere un sippy?
Esto es hasta abajo, cogele el "tricky"
No hay mas na. Para na es que yo te voy a mentir.
Yo se que yo tambien quiero consumir de tu perejil.
Y tu viniste amazonica como Brasil,
Tu viniste a matarla como Kill Bill,
Tu viniste a beber cerveza de barril,
Tu sabe con comingo tu tienes REFILL!
Yes, that's what I recommend- scoot on down the islands, throw on a mini and flip it up to your back, latch on to a "sippy" n get "tricky"
You will feel so much better, and might realize I'm not a total asshole. Stop in Mississippi and I'll give you three days free scooter rental and introduce you to the gay society of Natchez.
If you'll just meet me halfway, I'll even treat you to our agri-tour where, for $50, the average liberal gets to commiserate first hand with the slaves of the past by picking cotton and hoeing butter beans at the Butter Bean Cartel's farm and packing plant. If you notice the black hands snickering as you pick and hoe, it's just that they are party to the joke. They can laugh about themeselves, why can't you?
In my world, Mr. Trent, and in the world of my compatriots who are illegally detained from traveling freely throughout North America, preventing them from feeding their families and stripping their dignity from them, hurt feelings, "grave offence", is far less an issue than how to feed los ninos.
Working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, as they and I normally do, one doesn't have much time to turn oneself into a victim; one becomes prone to taking action that turns one into a provident father and proud mother, whose children are clean and well dressed and well schooled.
Your bellyaching about the perceived "stereotype" I hold of you does indeed halfway convince me you really are gay, and a weepy sissy at that.
While you are in the islands, why don't you go and see what some of the missionary groups are up to? They always need an extra hand carrying bricks and digging ditches and cleaning infected wounds. I realize you probably devote at least ten percent of your time to such work, but I feel you should devote even more because you seem to have way too much time on your hands; idle hands are the devil's workshop and he's working overtime convincing you that you are less than you are. Why believe all this negativity you throw out?
Love others and they will love you. If they don't, by chance, and some won't, at least you will have the pleasure of loving them.
Apparently, like most of his kind Tim, GW suffers from delusions as well as a phobia of the Press Corps exposing his foibles to the world at large.[ Since he refuses to acknowledge me at any rate] If he is indeed in Mississippi, then he's quite comfortable in his crass red-neck philosophy and there's no way you'll change that. His perceptions that the world should be lily white, Christian, and oh yeah perfect. He's the worst kind of bigot, an ignorant one.
Mr. Brody, the Nazi army was full of homosexuals, especially at the staff level.
I do not disparage my gay friends, I merely point out to them how they are used by people like you as political footballs to score points with your personal sense of morality ill-thought out politics. You love to puff yourself up by telling yourself and others that you are a good person because you support gays and abortion as a woman's right and so on and so forth ad nauseum; you are completely ignorant that the leaders of the politics to which you subscribe themselves call this legal project cynicism based. They lost faith in the goodness of man so they abandoned all efforts to be truly good and adopted the "might makes right" philosophy of "the end justifes the means"; so do they practice, ever justifying despicable actions of theft and deception in pursuit of ends proven for the last hundred and thirty years to be dead ends responsbile for the deaths of over 300 million people in the name of resource allocation.
You really need to acquaint yourself with Duncan Kennedy and Marc Tuchow, et al, and examine the roots of your self-congratulatory political and moral point of view. There is no end that you pursue that cannot be achieved in a strictly voluntary society free of morals police like yourself and the confused Mr. Trent.
For the record, I've only been in a church on three occasions since 1972, and that was merely for observational purposes. I believe most institutionalized religions, especially those claiming 501(c)3 status to be as destructive to society as you post modernists who don't realize your post modern ideas are five thousand years old and discussed in the Bible in the story of how Jacob taught the Pharoah how to tax the people in such a way that the people lost first their crops, then their land, then themselves- all in the name of a program to store grain in case of famine.
I am totally against the mercantilist policies of the English loyalists who head the Republican party on behalf of she who knighted Bush I and others for service to the throne. I am against the billions of dollars my fellow countrymen must cough up in NATO dollars to protect a bunch of snotty nosed, whiny EU socialists who profit from defense contracts with the US and refuse to nake their NATO payments.
You may hate the fossil fuel industry, but without it and without the US Army's mercantilist global police force, now playing the same role the British Navy played in protection of the East India Company, you would soon find yourself facing Mecca five times a day with your women being whipped in the streets; this is not an altogether unpleasant picture from my point of view, the Muslim invasion of Europe, at least they believe in sound money and decry the usurious practices you fascist socialists seek to saddle them with in your support of mercantilism.
I am not of a kind, Mr. Brody, I am of myself, an individual, politically a Democratic-Republican; there are not many of us left around, greed having claimed most of us, carrying us off to either the left or the right.
I bet it would surprise you to know that I am the founder of two organizations, The Black Masters, Journeymen, & Apprentices and The Brown Masters, Journeymen, & Apprentices. We seek a more equitable distribution of wealth through working more efficiently using non-monetary capital and sharing among ourselves to acquire monetary capital, through the study of gold markets and fiat finance.
Our activities are diverse and our hope and our joy is great. Today one of the founding members of the Brown Masters, a Master himself, is involved in a special project, breaking in our new 2009 Cadillac DTS purchased in a group effort on my credit and capital. Master Lara will be taking his lovely family on a trip up the Natchez Trace to scout out land for an expansion for our activities, and to produce photographs for our website at traceriders.com .
You do not know me Mr. Brody, not at all. As does Mr. Trent you project your own personality onto the world around you in an apparently vain effort to enlighten yourself as to the cause of your many troubles. I do, however, compliment you on the steadfastness with which you project your worldview and would only have it that you realize that it is you that you see in the world around you, no other. Fix that person and the world becomes a more enticing place with wonders around every corner, and the universe says yes to all desires because it does not know how to say no; only you can say no and that only by refusing to see the plain truth before you.
On another note, Brer Rabbit now has settled brokerage deals with dealers of both Ford and GM products. We can literally save you thousands on a new Ford or General Motors vehicle, including the top of the line. We are moving units so this is a good time to buy. If you can beat the deal Brer Rabbit makes for you Brer Rabbit will gladly refund the $400 fee plus an extra $20 for your trouble.
I find it quite hilarious, Brody. Methinks he doth protest too much.
I love it when someone misses the point so well and so completely. But this usually points to absences at comprehension lessons.
Where does he get his slave metaphor from? Is he so in tune with BDSM as well as other unusual practices?
I still find his vile outpourings and intemperate language offensive. I think he also has no competent understanding of The Holocaust, but that is probably a product of his country's education system.
Nonetheless he behaves like a schoolyard bully, and exhibits that strange homophobia of those whose own sexuality terrifies them.
Mr. Trent, you dare to provoke me and then cry like a little girl when I pull your hair a little. I could do much more than I have done in regard to you. Because you are so victimized I have taken it very easy on you.
So, being gay is okay, but practicing BDSM is not? I suspected as much.
For the record, I do not practice BDSM. I was for a while a member of the Gorean community but left it because it is tainted too much with those seeking sensual pleasure instead of spiritual enlightenment.
I do believe it is the place of a man to dominate a woman, in most cases, though in some it is reversed to the pleasure of both; in most cases it is reversed to the displeasure of both.
Ownership of humans is at the core of human love; all the love songs and stories abound with references to "mine", a sure mark of ownership.
A person such as me may indeed hold as property a woman so long as she consents, but releases her when she wishes. Indeed, I would not touch a woman who does not yield to me- ask my presently departing second wife who sought to play at being what I really am.
I do not care that she departs, I have already replaced her with a pretty 30 year old Hispanic who has the appearance of a Spanish princessa. It was my acquisition of this beautiful Spaniard that prompted my wife's departure, somehow I managed to hit the wrong button and sent my now departing wife an email in Spanish I'd written to the woman who is far more worthy of my protection than the departing one ever was. So it goes- sometimes you just make mistakes.
Though I don't care that she departs of her own free will, now released from that which she never accepted, I wish she would return the $26k I had to cover in her non-payment of income taxes I was held liable for, and I wish she hadn't taken all my files and thrown them in a pile on the living room floor. It will take my new woman days to sort all that stuff out, but I'll reward her well for it.
Ah, so Marty and GW are the same intemperate poster then. Interesting. Well, both are a major irrelevance.
As I said Tim, the worst kind of bigot is always an ignorant one.
OK GW, As a 30 year veteran of the Press Corps, the last 12 of which I have been covering both The White House & the Hill, I have a little bit more of a world view than you do. I also have a much better understanding of the realities of the American political process as I observe it daily.
Now, you are correct that I do not know you. That is fact. It is however also fact that I have dealt with Americans that espouse the same exact type of vitriolic diatribe that you have expressed here in this comments thread.
In fact, I just recently covered another event on Capitol Hill regrading some the views I see that you adhere to.
Your very manner of presenting yourself is mean-spirited, demeaning to others, close minded, and well within the accepted parameters for the label of bigot.
Do not dare to attempt to challenge me with empty rhetoric sir, its not gonna a play with this reporter. I've had vastly more important folk than you try to dazzle me with bullshit including the now former 43rd President of the United States whom I've interviewed more than once.
My advice to you, is that you need to learn to be more charitable and human. As apparently your deficit is a lack of human compassion and understanding prompted in part, by I am almost certain, your extensive ignorance of the world.
Returning gradually to the subject of politics I do recall further back that 'GW' promised to offer some personal definitions to work with.
Since the concept of 'ownership' is at the heart of my understanding of socialism and Marty's understanding of social relationships too, perhaps we could investigate this concept a bit more deeply.
Is Marty a socialist, or are there more than one form of possible 'ownership' structure?
I am less than impressed with your claims of an advanced world view Mr. Brody, for I know people such as yourself to be corporate shills fronting for mercantilists. You are allowed to publish only what pleases your Master.
Make any other claim and I will seriously doubt your credibility.
You cover one side of a two sided coin, and that coin is a paper coin, fiat, that presents the public with two apparent choices with one goal: subjugation of the people to the state.
You argue on your own authority; you try to use your credentials as a passport to scoring argumentative points- that is a logical fallacy and does not fly with me.
Tell me, name me one serious piece of investigative journalism you have participated in. What risks did you take? What did you expose? I don't know you either, it is entirely possible you have some body of work I would enjoy.
On the other hand, your inability to allow me any sort of dignity is indicative of the platform your world view is built on. Like Mr. Trent you see yourself in the whole world around you; you frame your perceptions in your own failures and lack of courage and ambition.
I have compassion in adequate measure. I do not suffer fools though, and there are many on this blog who are foolish. I save my compassion for the hungry and the weak, not the well fed fool who impresses himself with weak arguments and self congratulations.
So think of me what you will, my life is full, complete, my vision clear. I have a purpose, I have accomplishment, and I have intent to carry forward my vision and purpose and add to my accomplishment.
The defamatory remarks you and Mr. Trent make regarding me do not affect me at all. I am unattached. You, and Mr. Trent, are attached. The purpose of my several personas here was to show different points of view that are usually not accepted coming from one person. Once I even had Mr. Oranjepan trying to privately email me for some hot cyber sex.
Now, what is it you wish to discuss, what real issue of importance, that you can discuss without attacking me?
How do you feel about immigration? It is an important issue with me and I do more than discuss it, I back my point of view with money I have earned through my hard work. What have you personally done to affect the deplorable state of US immigration laws?
I'm glad you see your life as full and complete. I'm not wholly surprised either. Self satisfaction and bigotry do tend to fill one up.
What a shame some spills out when you turn a corner. But bile is every refilling, and you display plenty of that. May I suggest a good indigestion remedy? Dyspepsia as well will be hard to bear.
_guffaws_
Marty, either you're lying or you've been spammed.
_checks anti-virus system_
You're very sensitive to criticism if you don't mind me saying so, but you're among potential friends, so there's no need to be (so) defensive and put us off.
I don't see why you're afraid of being honest about any opinions or feelings you have - we're here to listen and offer a supportive atmosphere even if that means disagreeing in a rigorous manner.
We're all adults (at least I think so - monkey years work a bit differently, so I get confused sometimes) and I'm sure we can all behave like we're all growed up.
What I display is not bile but truth, Mr. Trent.
Truth is easy to digest once one becomes accustomed to it.
Take immigration for instance. Amnesty is a popular leftist issue in this country.
I am also a supporter of total amnesty for all undocumented American residents now living in the country; I am also for completely open borders.
The undocumented Americans are exactly the people we want here, people brave enough to wade rivers and cross deserts, brave enough to put liberty over tyranny, brave enough to act to improve their lives.
Unlike so many I do not see these people as a drain on our economy, I see them as one of the more stable forces now affecting us.
My view on open borders comes from my Democratic-Republican philosophy. Our constitution guarantees us three basic rights, the right to liberty, the right security in person and papers, and the right to own property. Only through the abolition of these three rights can free men be reduced to slaves or serfs.
The right to liberty is the right to go freely where one pleases, it is a right imbued by God and Nature, which granted us two feet, the muscles to move them, and hands to supply the fuel to the muscles. The whole earth is our domain, for each and every one of us. We should be free to go where the work is without fear of imprisonment and without having to risk our lives to get there.
I don't know on what grounds the left supports these same issues, but I am interested to hear. Can you enlighten me, Mr. Trent? Or perhaps can you, Mr. Brody, with your access to the halls of sacred power in Washington? Why does the left support open borders and amnesty?
So, Marty is GW and GW is Marty? Hmm, okay, well mental issues and split personalities ala schizophrenia aside Marty/GW.
My interaction with you is done. You are a hateful creature whose goal in life seems to be eradication of those mortals lessor than yourself or your standards.
I have no time for ignorant bigots whose stated purpose is to have a white's only utopia in a theocratic state. Oh and Mr Bigot? I am Canadian so I will not comment on U. S. immigration affairs although I've observed that most immigrants even the so-called illegal ones seem to contribute more to American society than "citizens" even with the amount of hype about the alleged costs and burdens of "illegal" immigration.
Your political ideology is scary and intolerant. It leaves no room for basic human kindnesses and I pity you. You are truly a card carrying member of a sad and hateful group of human beings that have the collective intelligence of a group of lobotomized houseflies.
All you know is hate....too bad eh?
You overlook one crucial point Mr. Oranjepan. By the way, did that slave ever contact you by email? How did that go? And would you like to know why you were rebuffed? I saw the whole thing, she is my girl, and the reason she turned you down is because she sensed you wanted sex and not discussion, and you did not offer to participate in the ritual. You'll never know what you missed. Those Gorean slavegirls are pretty nice aren't they? You should meet one in real life. It's even better.
How many times do you have to hear something before it gets into your brain?
I will not discuss your blind alleys or diversions with you. I object to your offensive words in your first comment about homosexuals.
All the rest of your rants and peculiar outpourings have been to seek to distract people from your entrenched view. I will not be fooled by you.
Your behaviour is immoderate, your language is form the gutter and the pictures you paint are designed to disgust and denigrate people.
That behaviour, like your fist comment, disgusts me.
Perhaps there is someone worthwhile behind the facade, but increasingly your comments mean I doubt that. You do not appear to be someone any right thinking person would wish to share air with. And you are achieving that by dint of your own foul mouth and your own bigotry.
Perhaps you should offer to join Fred Phelps and his band of disgusting bigots. I think you would probably pass the interview with flying colours.
Mr. Brody, I think the reason you decline to comment honestly on US immigration law is because your Master would release you if you wrote something he didn't like and you know it. Who knows who from what party would ban you from your so-called news gathering?
Try living as a freeman. It's fun. Have faith that your native gifts will provide the security you seek from your Master.
I wish I was overlooking something, at least then I could have some indication of what you're talking about. At the moment it's all going completely over my head.
It's interested that you say you're for open borders, that's not exactly something which fits with closed minds.
You have now confirmed my suspicions, Mr. Trent, as I suspected you would.
For you the most important issue on this blog is your own selfish advancement of your gay victimization. You have paradigm lock.
I have not spoken offensively regarding gays, even of those who have to have awkward objects removed from their rears in emergency rooms, or those in Washington how partake in gay pedophile rings, a la the Larry King affair.
No, you have taken offense only because it pleases you to be offended. And just as it pleases you to be offended, it pleases you to offend.
Should I give up my right to free speech because you would have me say things in a different way? I don't think so, for if I fell into that habit what would the next freedom I gave up be?
I am sorry you cannot see the warmth I feel for you, that you are not tough enough to seriously engage with personal attack; so you were scarred a little in battle, you are a big boy aren't you?
Didn't your dad ever tell you that when the school bully takes your lunch you are supposed to punch him in the nose no matter how big he is?
You've said I'm a school bully. So punch me back, debate me on immigration, tell me what your thoughts are.
Mr. Oranjepan, the crucial point you overlook along with the others is that I am not close minded at all, I am supremely open minded.
It is because I say that I am against forced state control and that I favor voluntarism that people quit listening and never ask me what voluntarism is.
I called you on one thing only. You ducked, dived, wriggled, became potty mouthed, accused, and did everything to avoid answering the thing I called you on. You seem to have had an education so I can only assume you are adopting this as a tactic of avoidance.
You may be as rude as you wish, bully and bluster all you wish, and seek to divert me, but I still call you on your first post.
You were offensive.
You continue to be offensive.
I will continue to call you on it. You need to withdraw, and without adding your own peculiar sexually fixated brand of smut to that word.
There are no other topics in this thread that I will discuss with you until you withdraw. That is my punch on your nose, if you like. That has always been my punch on your nose.
Well, you certainly seem to have given the impression you're closed-minded to a few of the commenters here!
But talking about your opposition to forced state control takes me back to your support for the death penalty - isn't the voluntary form of capital punishment a lynch mob?
What I mean is that, ok, it's fair enough to have beliefs, but there are always limits on their applicability in any given situation and you need to carefully think through any course of action.
You may well be disgusted at gay sex, but are you going to police every bedroom in the land?
Social conformity creates huge pressures on all individuals, and anyone who is forced by their circumstances to confront their own behaviour must look back into their own past to understand exactly where these problems stem from in order to resolve them.
And by that there are no exceptions - even slight anger issues indicate some underlying memory which causes discomfit.
So before anyone starts judging we should be careful about what it says about ourselves.
Mr. Oranjepan, I think I originally underestimated you by far. You've consistently shown yourself to be a person who seeks balance though at times I think you are a bit off the mark. But we all are, aren't we?
And please, pardon me for putting that girl on you that day. She really did want to talk to you and she was delighted with several of the things you said, you just rushed it a bit.
Thank you for being so balanced in view as to not attack me, I appreciate that greatly.
I will clear up something else for you, my abortion view.
Every person has a natural right to do whatsoever he or she pleases, but not all things are expedient because there is a natural penalty attached to all actions; sometimes the penalty is negative, so the result is seen as a good, and sometimes the penalty is seen as bad.
A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, and her body alone. The dna of even the smallest cell clump contains dna unique to that growing individual.
If a woman destroys that fetus, she has destroyed a unique individual she has no natural rights over, but over which she has natural power.
The Romans at times allowed fathers to kill children of any age; the natural right to kill was protected as a civil right under these laws.
Just so, the natural right of a woman to abort is now protected as a civil right, a right created by man and not by nature. There are any number of penalties attached to birth control and abortion, including destruction of the body through increased cancer risk and emotional distress caused by a woman's acquiesence to the culture in which she was raised. She may abort, but it is not penalty free; she may lose her natural right to bear another child and she may lose years from her life spent suffering from cancer and disfigurement.
I do not support the civil right which legalizes the power to kill an innocent, unique individual. I acknowledge the natural right and have no choice but to support it knowing that what transpires between the Creator and the transgressor is entirelty between the two of them.
That's fascinating, but you do keep changing the subject.
It's almost like you want people to hear you, but that you don't care whether anyone agrees with you on any specific point.
Mr. Oranjepan, the sight of vomit and the smell of dirty baby diapers disgusts me to the point that I wretch uncontrollably, it is an automatic reaction no one faults me for.
All forms of sex are held by the yogis to be disgusting, yet to the practioners the disgust is not seen. I do not care what gay people do, but I wish they would not do it in public. It would be okay if they would just hold hands, or appear as couples and act like heterosexuals; some do behave in just this way and I welcome them and accept them. What I do not welcome or accept is the outrageous, intentionally provocative in-your-face sexual displays championed in the gay pride parades.
I support the death penalty because I allow all the natural right to kill, but hold all to be bound by duty not to kill with just cause. Society has determined that just cause does not extend to lust murder, to murder for gain, or for some other forms of murder; it is my personal opinion that some rapes are of such an heinous nature the death penalty is appropriate. I believe that in those cases where society can determine a person has killed another unjustly and with malice or lust, society has a duty to remove that person from society. It effectively prevents that one person from ever doing it again; if they did it one time they will likely be less resistant to the impulse to kill a second time.
Nature has built into most of us a reluctance to kill unjustly, even extending this to the killing of animals. It is common among deer hunters that the killing of a deer causes a severe emotional reaction the hunter attempts to cover with bravado. Some cultures acknowledge the violation even of hunting by offering prayers at the point of the kill.
"And by that there are no exceptions - even slight anger issues indicate some underlying memory which causes discomfit"
This is one of the most profound thoughts you've yet expressed Mr. Oranjepan.
I am not immune to anger, though increasingly so, at times anger arises in me but passes quickly. A change began to come over me afte the last debate I had with Lisa and I've experienced a great release of tension resulting in a clarity I did not previously have.
Anger arises when desire is frustrated. Remove the obstacle to the desire and the anger disappears. If one is bound to see only one or two possibilities for the removal of an obstacle frustrating his desire, then his ability to remove that obstacle is severely limited. Anger itself limits the ability to act on a plan to remove the obstacle, creating even more anger. One must become unattached to one's actions in order to be able to effectively deal with anger and the removal of obstacles to fulfillment.
Well, I agree that no behaviour is just behaviour - it all leaves a memory, which we can interpret as a spiritual imprint, and it all requires an intellectual framework to enable us to cope with it and overcome any negative reactions to prevent any harmful behaviour resulting in the future.
But this is something which is not easily learnt, rather it is a conception of universal laws which grows with us and within us.
This creates an immense problem with extreme behaviour (such as killing) - even soldiers undergo lengthy training to enable them to go to the front line, and recieve after care to enable them to reintegrate into society after their tours.
Yet when it comes to murder, those who commit it do so largely without comprehension of the personal or social consequences their behaviour or because they haven't been able to learn.
How we treat murderers and serious offenders really comes down to a view about whether we consider them capable of learning and whether we consider it viable to supply the resources to do so.
My own view is that part of being human is the capacity to learn and it requires us to consciously dehumanise others to deny them that opportunity.
"Yet when it comes to murder, those who commit it do so largely without comprehension of the personal or social consequences their behaviour or because they haven't been able to learn."
I cannot agree with this. The person who kills another for his money, or his wife, or any other piece of property knows he does wrong. If it were not wrong to take the property of others without asking no one would be so lacking as to need to kill another to obtain property.
Then there is the case of lust killers. Jeffrey Dahlmer, and every other serial lust killer I've read about, stated that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, they just enjoyed it so much they kept doing it. Even if they don't know it's wrong, putting them to death halts the ongoing murders, but I think it would be a very rare case where any killer was unaware of the wrongness of his actions.
I do respect your point of view though, in it you express your compassion and a willingness to accept a portion of the burden of the sins of others, not a bad thing, but in my view unproductive and misguided. In some special cases I could agree, such as the case of the father in Baton Rouge who killed his son's rapist. And I am sure there are other special cases that would apply as well- like the schizophrenic who killed and ate the young man on the bus in Canada. The only advantage to putting this killer to death would be that society is not forced to support him, and possibly it would put an end to whatever suffering drives him to do these horrible things. I've know a few schizophrenics and they weren't happy people, but I would not have ended their life to save the expense of society trying to help them with food, clothing, and medical care.
Not forgetting the socialism issue Mr. Oranjepan, you said this:
Since the concept of 'ownership' is at the heart of my understanding of socialism and Marty's understanding of social relationships too, perhaps we could investigate this concept a bit more deeply.
The nuclear family unit operating under traditional rules and roles is a socialist economic structure.
Going back in time to the traditions surrounding the formation of the nuclear unit, the tradition of giving (or selling) a young woman to a man was the basis for what followed. The socialist structure began with a man acquiring capital with a particular set of potentialities, including the ability to bear children.
Engaging in sexual commerce the parents produced the family, which then was totally subsidized by the parents until the children became old enough, at three or four or five to begin to contribute in a positive way to the family economics.
Although a socialist unit within, still the unit was engaged in capital production, rearing animals or raising crops, which bear natural interest in good years in the form of increased herds or flocks and crops in excess of the seeds used to plant them.
Socialism cannot exist without capitalism, there must be some profitable source of funding for society, just as for the nuclear family, to prosper. No profit ends ultimately in annihilation.
The form of capitalism that people commonly object to is that which takes too much from the workers (children) and gives to much to management (parents). It could happen that there could be a family where the parents were so engaged in some vice that the sustenance of the whole unit was spent and the worker children were left hungry, ill clothed, and unschooled.
Political socialism attempts to prevent this possibility by setting into place regulations forcing the managing parents to more equitably support the working children so want and privation is not found.
Suppose there were a family where not only the managing parents fell prey to vice, but the children as well? The whole unit becomes dysfunctional, and whose fault is that?
Should the family next door give up its sustenance because it favors virtuous activity or vice, and produces in excess of what it needs for survival? Should all suffer for the vices of the few, who are in fact lower in number naturally, but increasing in number in those countries where such wealth transfer schemes are in effect. Why work until you actually start to starve to death? As long as others are working and you can enjoy the warm sun and the cool waters, what incentive is there to share the work as well as the bounty?
Here is based part of my opposition to socialism.
Most all ancient societies provided for the payment of some tax or tithe of 10% for the maintenance of the poor, those who could not work. This number must have been an actuarial number consistent across much of the globe because it is so common.
How is it that now, with the highest food production rates ever, that governments require up to 70% tax and the churches still ask for tithes of at least 10%? Has our improved standard of living and increased production increased the number of the infirm, or has it increased the number of the unwilling?
I believe it is the latter because historically all societies tending to pure democracy suffer when the
unwilling realize they have the same voting power as the willing, and vote for themselves the property of the willing, creating over time growing numbers of the unwilling as the willing begin to see that their standard of living approaches that of the unwilling- this is to them an inequity as they give more and have less and the unwilling give less and have more.
Production begins a gradual decline as it did in Sweden in the late 70's and 80's forcing the government to allow the willing to keep more of what they earned and forcing it to institute laws forcing more of the unwilling to become at least minimally productive.
A job, not a house as bankers like to say, is the greatest asset a person can have because the profit margin on labor is very high compared to other commodities, at least when that labor is augmented with some skill or talent.
Any society with a high number of jobs will experience a high level of prosperity because more people are producing wealth, that is, they are producing things of value to trade with others.
Conversely, those policies which lead to a lessening in the number of jobs, such as giveaway programs, destroy the overall production of wealth within a society.
Thanks Marty, I had to consider what you wrote because you do write at some length.
First point, on crime, I think my argument stands.
If people don't think of the consequences then society failed to provide the required education, but if they calculate that they won't be caught and suffer any consequences then society has failed equally.
Why should the individual be punished for society's mistakes? Surely the correct course is for society to make up for those mistakes.
If that means to re-educate while preventing a reoccurrence of the behaviour which lead to the crime then fine, but society should never compound the original mistake by failing to accept responsibility and executing athe ultimate sanction.
Secondly, on your opposition to 'socialism'.
I tried to disentangle your lenthy exposition, as it seems you got somewhat confused in a bad comparison.
From what I could read you don't oppose the politics, only the actual level of the sums proposed by those who you characterise as holding those politics.
So technically you are leading yourself into arguments to which you don't subscribe.
I'd give you much more credit if you substituted more accurate terms when trying to explain your opposition, as it seems obvious that your opposition is based on the reality on the ground rather than anything theoretical.
So let me suggest your opposition is against what is 'uneconomic' as the basis for your argument.
This is something which everyone can agree with, rather than the deliberately divisive language of the 'tea-baggers' which is designed to build a base for future election campaigns.
I'd argue that Obama's Democratics are not 'socialist', just less anti-social then the Reps. However, there remains a significant debate to be had on the economic course being undertaken and we shall see how it plays out over the next few years.
The growing disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street is clearly not something which can be simply laid at the door of the current administration.
Post a Comment