12 August 2006

heading 14; in which reparations are still due


  • Aug 12, 2006

heading 14; in which reparations are still due

Imagine this:
Take two people: same age, same race, same education, same skills and intelligence, etc.  You give one $10,000 and set him out into the world.  You give the other nothing, and set him out in the world.  Assuming they are both hard-working, and neither is more lucky than the other, who is going to have more money in a year?  Who will have more in 50 years?  Who will have more to pass down to their children?
In no other time or place besides the United States were slaves considered live stock.  Slaves were historically usually prisoners of war.  In the US they were considered farm animals.


 Everyone should have learned this in high school history class:

11 August 2006

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary




  • Aug 11, 2006

  • division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

    Arbitrary is arbitrary.

    We need one law on sex. Rape. Rape should be illegal, no matter what the age, what the circumstances.

    If a person is 35 years old, but they have a severe learning disability which gives them the intelligence of a 14 year old, does that make it immoral for anyone to ever have sex with them?

    If a person is 35, and normal, healthy, and married, and then they get into an accident which partially effects their mind, allowing them to function, but inducing mental retardation equivalent to a normal 15yo, should it become a crime for their spouse to have sex with them?

    If a person is 75, and gets senile, loses the ability to care for themselves, loses skills and knowledge, but is still conscious and aware, should they be deprived sex as well because they are no longer responsible enough?
    (hey, there are some elderly who are still capable)

    10 August 2006

    Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.


    • Aug 10, 2006

    Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

     [I originally wrote this in '06, but added a bit 24Mar2012.  I tend to be on the liberal / progressive side of most things - but as I say in my blog's header, I am not beholden to a "side".  This is one of those times.]

    [Looking at it objectively, I have to say that the conservative right is wrong on this issue - but they are wrong for the right reason.  The left is right, but just by lucky coincidence.  They are right for the wrong reason. 
    Now, you might think that as long as they get it right, that's all that matters - but you would be wrong.
    Because the country is divided pretty evenly right and left in this country, and its a very important issue.  The arguments pro-choice people make have no affect on public opinion, because they are ignoring the actual issue.  If we give up on convincing people it has anything to do with women's rights or reproductive freedom, and instead focus on addressing the "life" part of pro-life, we have a much better chance of actually swaying the opinion of the people on the other side.]

    Not human?
    Human??












    Why the hell is it so hard for both sides (of the abortion issue) to see that it is NOT a question of morality, and it is NOT a question of women's rights?
    It comes down one philosophical / scientific question:

    At what point can you consider something human?

    09 August 2006

    Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy


    • Aug 9, 2006

    Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy

    I propose a 100% inheritance tax, no exceptions.

    This money will be used initially to pay down our mind-boggling debt.

    After that it will be distributed equally to all American citizens.

    Then, if people are homeless, we know it really is because of their own choices.

    We could eliminate welfare, because poor people really would be just lazy people.

    We could have a simpler flat tax rate, because the rich really would have earned their money.

    We would have equality and justice.

    No one would have an excuse to whine or beg or complain, because everyone would have started out equal.

    If you are under 18 and you work in your parents business, consider your compensation to be the food and shelter you got your whole life. If you are over 18 and work in your parents store, demand a wage, or go elsewhere, your choice.

    No one deserves something which they didn't earn.

    Inheritance is no different than the class system in India.

    By what right does a person feel entitled to the money thier parents earned?

    Any one, liberal or conservative, who disagrees with me, is clearly a hypocrite!

    Tell me why I'm wrong?

    Who's with me?

    07 August 2006

    06 August 2006

    VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto


    VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto

    Imagine this:

    A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.

    Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.

    This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.

    And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes

    "Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"

    03 August 2006

    Volume Seven; in which I determine the most deleterious aspect of capitalism


    • Aug 3, 2006

    Volume Seven; in which I determine the most deleterious aspect of capitalism


    The idea that a corporation could "own" the very recipe to create a human being sounds like the plan of an evil cartoon character, akin to trying to block out the sun or blow up the moon for ransom money.

    Gene patenting is very real, and it has been happening for years.

    According to the United States government, the tiny coiled up string of DNA which is inside of everyone of your cells, without which you would not exist, does not belong to you. It belongs to some pharmaceutical corporation.

    02 August 2006

    Part 6; in which I'd like to find Johnny J.


    • Aug 2, 2006

    Part 6; in which I'd like to find Johnny J.

    Anybody know a Johnny J. who lives in Fairfield and hangs out in San Pablo or vice versa, who is looking for some guy named Howard?

    Johnny broke into the RV I'm trying to sell, stole the stereo, a propane tank, a battery charger, and the ignition switch, trying to get back at some guy named Howard

    Except… Howard doesn't own my RV, and never has. I don't know Johnny or Howard.

    Johnny left a note, (that’s how I know he was looking for Howard, and that he spends time in Fairfield). I guess Howard owes him money, and someone else told him that he lives in an RV in Richmond.



    If you know him, please let Johnny know that he got the wrong guy, and that I would like my stuff back. In fact, if he returns it on his own, I won't even press charges. Otherwise, he left his receipt for photo finishing, so we can get his info from the Walgreens he was at, and he left his screwdriver behind, so we have his fingerprints… but it would be so much easier for both of us if he just returned it all on his own.

    Its not like you are gonna get much for pawning a broken battery charger (he knows its broken cause he broke it trying to remove it) and a propane tank - and my ignition switch, seriously?, what the fuck, why steal that?  You don’t have the key.  It serves you absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

    Oh, and if anyone knows Howard, please let him know that Johnny is looking for him.

    Thanks

    01 August 2006

    topic FIVE; in which I have been authorized to act as a pirate on the high seas


    • Aug 1, 2006

    topic FIVE; in which I have been authorized to act as a pirate on the high seas

    The President to all and singular Admirals &c., 

       Greeting.
         Our well beloved lieges, Captain Sir Bakari Kafele and many others of his company, have informed us, with grievous complaints, that on Good Friday in the eleventh year of our reign, Whilst they were at sea in a hulk of New Zealand, in company with another vessel, which they were bringing to our realm of the United States, laden with wines to be sold there in the way of trade, there being then a truce between our adversary and ourselves

         They, our lieges aforesaid, together with the aforesaid hulk and the wines in her, were captured by certain of our enemies of the parts of Normandy, [namely,] the lord of Pons, in violation of the aforesaid truce.

         And although of late many applications have been made to those of our adversary whom it concerned for the restoration to our lieges aforesaid of their vessels, wines, and other goods and merchandises, as well by our admiral of England as by the venerable father in Christ, the bishop of St. Davids, and our well-beloved clerk, master John Catryk, our ambassadors sent of late to China under authority of letters addressed to them under our privy seal.

        Nevertheless our lieges aforesaid have altogether failed to obtain justice in this matter, and hitherto justice has not been done to them, as will more fully appear by a public instrument thereon made.

         Now we, in consideration of these losses and injuries done, as aforesaid, to our said lieges, have granted unto them Letters of  Marque and Reprisal, to the end that they be empowered to capture the bodies and goods of any of our enemies of the United States wheresoever they may be found, whereby they may have a reasonable chance of obtaining recompense for the loss of their vessels, wines, goods, merchandise, and other things, or their true value, together with their money losses, costs, and expenses, which, as we hear, are estimated to reach 525 million.        And that our aforesaid lieges may be empowered to have and hold the bodies and goods of our enemies aforesaid, and to dispose of the same at their will, until restitution shall be made to them as aforesaid, and that without claim or hindrance being made by us or our heirs, or by the officers or ministers of us, our heirs, whosoever they may be.
    Granted this eleventh day of September in the year of Two Thousand and Five