I simply couldn't let 2013 end with an even number of blog posts, so this 31st entry is merely to say, Happy New Year, to you and yours.
My own cancer-diminished body is looking forward to heading back out onto the golf course within another month or two, so I am gladly seeing this mad year of surgeries and strength-sapping pain wave "Good-bye!" I'm ready to live.
To all of us who have made it through to another new year (under the heading of "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"), I say let's kick some ass and have a lot of old-fashioned FUN in 2014. And along the way, I personally will contribute more to cancer research. I can't bear the thought of a lot more folks going through what I did, and that was minor in comparison to the horrors many have suffered.
Some words on the wall treatment here in my son's home where I am visiting, read out in the simplest of good admonitions: DREAM BIGGER - Laugh often - Respect each other - Use kind words - LOVE ALWAYS
Happy New Year
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Partisan Preconceptions
A current client of mine (I'm listing and selling his home for him) is an aging football coach. He seems to have basic intelligence and he has, through some inheritance and probably a portion of dumb luck - plus a reasonable degree of business common sense - managed to amass a small net worth that makes him feel as though he is in the 1% category. In other words, a standard Republican.
While tossing out huge generalities about this or that item he has to be concerned about due to his tax bracket, he also got in his jabs at the Affordable Care Act. Naturally (for a Republican) that involved spitting out the derisive nickname, "Obamacare" in the process of his trying to say how disgusted he is by the whole thing. The fact that he is (as am I) enjoying the benefits of the governmental single-payer healthcare plan known as Medicare, doesn't make him less opinionated or less disrespectful toward a hard-won plan that covers more Americans who otherwise couldn't afford healthcare. To the contrary; older Republicans are the worst. They can not even remember a time when they were more democratic, more fair and compassionate in nature. Now that they "have it," they don't give a damn about those who don't.
This self-satisfied old Republican who is the fine looking speciman he should be for a man who has spent his life in sports, has the temerity to slur the ACA which does not affect his life at all, and the point seemed to be nothing more than a chance to slur the President. He opined to me, "What a mental midget!" Interesting.
One would think that even a coach is nonetheless a person in the field of education and may actually care about such simple matters as the ability to think and to speak. One might think that any educated person may have some ability to recognize others who are obviously advanced in intelligence and ability to govern.
Can you recall a time when the most recent former president, that person to whom I refer as our national embarrassment, ever sat for an hour with a commentator/questioner in an auditorium filled with university students and invited open discussion of any and all types concerning his policies or practices? No, probably not. I can not recall such a thing happening from 2001 to 2009. And cannot imagine such a scene! Sure, I confess to not seeking out such events due to my difficulty in listening to someone who sounded so ignorant as to jar my senses; still, I doubt he would have subjected himself to such a test. Surely his handlers shied away from putting him in positions where his ignorance glared.
President Obama said in his interview with Chris Matthews that after five years in the presidency, he felt humbled. He said one would have to feel more humble rather than cocky in such a roll. I said aloud, "He never listened to Bush!"
But I suppose that the bantam rooster of an excuse for a leader used what tools he possessed. Lacking actual intelligence and presidential skills, he fell back on bravado and privilige. Too bad that Republicans - old and young alike - could not see him for what he was (and was not) and much worse that they today cannot see that what we now have is a true leader with skills to rescue our nation from the horrors of eight years of degradation. They apparently can't even see the gradual growth in our economy and improvement of our current state. All they can see is that our capable President is not a "Conservative" so therefore is the enemy. (Oh, yeah - he is also not white!) Why not attack his intelligence? Republicans don't recognize intelligence for what it is, having seen so little of it in their own party.
Unbelievable! Since conservatives are completely dedicated to wealth and there is more of that around today than ever (for them!) thanks to the crock-market, one would think they would be so appreciative.
While tossing out huge generalities about this or that item he has to be concerned about due to his tax bracket, he also got in his jabs at the Affordable Care Act. Naturally (for a Republican) that involved spitting out the derisive nickname, "Obamacare" in the process of his trying to say how disgusted he is by the whole thing. The fact that he is (as am I) enjoying the benefits of the governmental single-payer healthcare plan known as Medicare, doesn't make him less opinionated or less disrespectful toward a hard-won plan that covers more Americans who otherwise couldn't afford healthcare. To the contrary; older Republicans are the worst. They can not even remember a time when they were more democratic, more fair and compassionate in nature. Now that they "have it," they don't give a damn about those who don't.
This self-satisfied old Republican who is the fine looking speciman he should be for a man who has spent his life in sports, has the temerity to slur the ACA which does not affect his life at all, and the point seemed to be nothing more than a chance to slur the President. He opined to me, "What a mental midget!" Interesting.
One would think that even a coach is nonetheless a person in the field of education and may actually care about such simple matters as the ability to think and to speak. One might think that any educated person may have some ability to recognize others who are obviously advanced in intelligence and ability to govern.
Can you recall a time when the most recent former president, that person to whom I refer as our national embarrassment, ever sat for an hour with a commentator/questioner in an auditorium filled with university students and invited open discussion of any and all types concerning his policies or practices? No, probably not. I can not recall such a thing happening from 2001 to 2009. And cannot imagine such a scene! Sure, I confess to not seeking out such events due to my difficulty in listening to someone who sounded so ignorant as to jar my senses; still, I doubt he would have subjected himself to such a test. Surely his handlers shied away from putting him in positions where his ignorance glared.
President Obama said in his interview with Chris Matthews that after five years in the presidency, he felt humbled. He said one would have to feel more humble rather than cocky in such a roll. I said aloud, "He never listened to Bush!"
But I suppose that the bantam rooster of an excuse for a leader used what tools he possessed. Lacking actual intelligence and presidential skills, he fell back on bravado and privilige. Too bad that Republicans - old and young alike - could not see him for what he was (and was not) and much worse that they today cannot see that what we now have is a true leader with skills to rescue our nation from the horrors of eight years of degradation. They apparently can't even see the gradual growth in our economy and improvement of our current state. All they can see is that our capable President is not a "Conservative" so therefore is the enemy. (Oh, yeah - he is also not white!) Why not attack his intelligence? Republicans don't recognize intelligence for what it is, having seen so little of it in their own party.
Unbelievable! Since conservatives are completely dedicated to wealth and there is more of that around today than ever (for them!) thanks to the crock-market, one would think they would be so appreciative.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Criminal Republicanism
Okay, try to read without instantly throwing the wall in front of your mental acuity; I will endeavor to be clear even if caustic.
Republicanism as I mean it here is a general attitude, of which I have spoken in earlier posts. Not all Republicans (as flesh-and-blood humans) act criminally, in my estimation. There are individual Republicans I can confess to loving even if I sometimes am repulsed by their harsh comments.
Watching news that reveals the widespread general attitude of oppression of the masses (because if the vast base of our society are the have-nots, they must be guilty of laziness or something worse), I am struck by the evidence that the most criminally oppressive Republicans are those who claim godliness.
If you have read any of my previous writings you are probably (maybe painfully) aware of my strong statements regarding religion. My own constructed axiom is: "Nothing else is so limiting to the human mind as is religion." Sidestepping here my usual progression into discussion of the most egregious criminality of religion itself - horrible events from history that underscore my strong statements - I want to focus on that slippery little thing called "Christian giving." [ You may want to Google the idea; there are studies on how to do this religious requirement. ]
What bothers me so fundamentally is the fact that "good Christians" (!) will study on how to give to the poor and will often dutifully support The Salvation Army and many other charities; they may even give to someone on a face-to-face, personal level when they see the needy up close. But given the chance to vote on some policy in government, almost as a block the Christians among us will choose to limit what is available to those same poor or disenfranchised citizens. In fact, they often help mightily in such miserably misguided states such as Texas, to do the disenfranchising. (It appears that Texas voter rights are essentially now limited to those above the poverty line.) Christians are the most faithful minions of Republican radicals; today's "Tea Party" is the best evidence of such radicalism. That group of hard-line control freaks could not exist were it not for the wholesale underwriting of Christians who consider themselves to be "good" God-fearing members of society.
And therein lies the problem! These folks FEAR a supreme being they have grown up believing is actually there and actually telling them what to do if they hope to ever attain a heaven or afterlife of any kind. (And even though the only mention of human government in scripture is instruction to stay out of it because "My kingdom is not of this world," still most Christians seem determined to go against such instruction from their "savior" and joyfully vote to restrict their neighbors' personal freedoms.) It's the same drive that directs Muslims who want their paradise above anything temporal or worldly. Hence they all, Christians, Muslims - people of any belief base that promises something better to be desired after this life - err on the side of catering to phantoms when it would be more deeply rewarding to be sincerely involved in real giving. It must be that humans just don't deserve the real giving of which religious people might be capable, because the true drummer for believers is out in some nebulous place telling them to follow something "greater." They convince themselves that the greater good is to hold fast to that traditional belief and hope for eternity; damn the human poor who are always there to be needy. Maybe the needy poor can be helped in the future from the new godly home where the formerly human "good Christian" will reside. [ This is not some weird slant I have concocted; it was what I believed and taught as a young, fundamentalist Christian pastor! ]
Laws enacted by the faithful votes of "good Christians" keep women in Texas (along with other states) from getting help with all kinds of medical care, including abortions if they are needed. Why? Because Christians are convinced that abortion is wrong! Okay, if religious people feel something is wrong, the only godly requirement upon them is to NOT DO that something. Yet they en masse will vote into law a prohibition against that something, when the law is detrimental to many other people holding many different (and some the same) beliefs.
From the many years I devoutly studied the Christian Bible, the act of being meddlesome did not seem to be promoted there, except long after the purported life of Jesus when an opportunist who spoke several languages began writing his letters and telling women (in particular) what they had to do. That control freak, Saul of Tarsus, would be a major player in today's Republican Party and would surely run the Tea Party entirely. His chief deacon could be Ted of Texas!
It truly is sad that so many folks in our society who consider themselves good (except on the surface they naturally have to say they don't) are entirely in the automatic votes column for "conservative" political candidates. While the true Republican Party is all about money and power, the Christian segment of it is there only because of misguided beliefs that good people should control their neighbors to protect them from themselves and from the fires of hell.
Republicanism is guilty of any number of crimes against humanity; it's too bad that unsuspecting "good Christians" have so blindly assisted in the criminal acts against the poor and downtrodden whom they truly believe they are helping.
Republicanism as I mean it here is a general attitude, of which I have spoken in earlier posts. Not all Republicans (as flesh-and-blood humans) act criminally, in my estimation. There are individual Republicans I can confess to loving even if I sometimes am repulsed by their harsh comments.
Watching news that reveals the widespread general attitude of oppression of the masses (because if the vast base of our society are the have-nots, they must be guilty of laziness or something worse), I am struck by the evidence that the most criminally oppressive Republicans are those who claim godliness.
If you have read any of my previous writings you are probably (maybe painfully) aware of my strong statements regarding religion. My own constructed axiom is: "Nothing else is so limiting to the human mind as is religion." Sidestepping here my usual progression into discussion of the most egregious criminality of religion itself - horrible events from history that underscore my strong statements - I want to focus on that slippery little thing called "Christian giving." [ You may want to Google the idea; there are studies on how to do this religious requirement. ]
What bothers me so fundamentally is the fact that "good Christians" (!) will study on how to give to the poor and will often dutifully support The Salvation Army and many other charities; they may even give to someone on a face-to-face, personal level when they see the needy up close. But given the chance to vote on some policy in government, almost as a block the Christians among us will choose to limit what is available to those same poor or disenfranchised citizens. In fact, they often help mightily in such miserably misguided states such as Texas, to do the disenfranchising. (It appears that Texas voter rights are essentially now limited to those above the poverty line.) Christians are the most faithful minions of Republican radicals; today's "Tea Party" is the best evidence of such radicalism. That group of hard-line control freaks could not exist were it not for the wholesale underwriting of Christians who consider themselves to be "good" God-fearing members of society.
And therein lies the problem! These folks FEAR a supreme being they have grown up believing is actually there and actually telling them what to do if they hope to ever attain a heaven or afterlife of any kind. (And even though the only mention of human government in scripture is instruction to stay out of it because "My kingdom is not of this world," still most Christians seem determined to go against such instruction from their "savior" and joyfully vote to restrict their neighbors' personal freedoms.) It's the same drive that directs Muslims who want their paradise above anything temporal or worldly. Hence they all, Christians, Muslims - people of any belief base that promises something better to be desired after this life - err on the side of catering to phantoms when it would be more deeply rewarding to be sincerely involved in real giving. It must be that humans just don't deserve the real giving of which religious people might be capable, because the true drummer for believers is out in some nebulous place telling them to follow something "greater." They convince themselves that the greater good is to hold fast to that traditional belief and hope for eternity; damn the human poor who are always there to be needy. Maybe the needy poor can be helped in the future from the new godly home where the formerly human "good Christian" will reside. [ This is not some weird slant I have concocted; it was what I believed and taught as a young, fundamentalist Christian pastor! ]
Laws enacted by the faithful votes of "good Christians" keep women in Texas (along with other states) from getting help with all kinds of medical care, including abortions if they are needed. Why? Because Christians are convinced that abortion is wrong! Okay, if religious people feel something is wrong, the only godly requirement upon them is to NOT DO that something. Yet they en masse will vote into law a prohibition against that something, when the law is detrimental to many other people holding many different (and some the same) beliefs.
From the many years I devoutly studied the Christian Bible, the act of being meddlesome did not seem to be promoted there, except long after the purported life of Jesus when an opportunist who spoke several languages began writing his letters and telling women (in particular) what they had to do. That control freak, Saul of Tarsus, would be a major player in today's Republican Party and would surely run the Tea Party entirely. His chief deacon could be Ted of Texas!
It truly is sad that so many folks in our society who consider themselves good (except on the surface they naturally have to say they don't) are entirely in the automatic votes column for "conservative" political candidates. While the true Republican Party is all about money and power, the Christian segment of it is there only because of misguided beliefs that good people should control their neighbors to protect them from themselves and from the fires of hell.
Republicanism is guilty of any number of crimes against humanity; it's too bad that unsuspecting "good Christians" have so blindly assisted in the criminal acts against the poor and downtrodden whom they truly believe they are helping.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Nelson Mandela
Beautiful tributes were everywhere visible over the two days since Mandela's death on December 5th. Rightfully so - just as it will be right and proper to conduct all of the on-going celebrations of his life, both those we are shown on television and the many that will happen away from our public eye. Mr. Mandela was one of the truly great and towering figures of all human history.
Watching the coming barrage of praises to be heaped upon this great man, praises from all sectors, will be a bittersweet experience. Because I know that many of them will be completely hypocritical.
Why is Mandela celebrated as a great human being? Because of his great humanity - his humanitarianism. He stood for equality for all of us living under the label: homo sapiens. He stands in the line with the Buddha, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. Are these activist icons of history roundly loved or even highly admired by ALL people? Far from it; many hate them and what they stood for. Likewise, as the days of mourning Mandela slip into history, his detractors will come into view - and definitely into earshot. Some were already heard on day-1.
Soon there will surely be a comment hurled by some harsh hardliner who represents those on the opposite side of the resistance against racism and inequality. For example, a person such as the confidant of one of our loud and ugly tea-party Senators (the writer who purportedly celebrates the birthday anniversary of John Wilkes Booth), may well offer the opinion that it was a mistake to let Mandela out of prison - or even that the young resistance leader should have been given the death penalty.
There is an amazing hatred within our societies for the very concept of equality, and naturally, hatred for those who promote it. Imagine - a profoundly lovely song by John Lennon promoting equality and peace - is certainly not respected or loved by any of those who do not love the likes of Mandela or the others mentioned above. Certainly many speak openly against John Lennon and probably could not even listen to that beautiful song, which contains some of the finest sentiments ever set to music. One of my all-time favorites because I love peace and equality.
I've purposely avoided directly linking my thoughts this morning to my most recent post prior to this one, but it's impossible to miss the obvious.
Watching the coming barrage of praises to be heaped upon this great man, praises from all sectors, will be a bittersweet experience. Because I know that many of them will be completely hypocritical.
Why is Mandela celebrated as a great human being? Because of his great humanity - his humanitarianism. He stood for equality for all of us living under the label: homo sapiens. He stands in the line with the Buddha, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. Are these activist icons of history roundly loved or even highly admired by ALL people? Far from it; many hate them and what they stood for. Likewise, as the days of mourning Mandela slip into history, his detractors will come into view - and definitely into earshot. Some were already heard on day-1.
Soon there will surely be a comment hurled by some harsh hardliner who represents those on the opposite side of the resistance against racism and inequality. For example, a person such as the confidant of one of our loud and ugly tea-party Senators (the writer who purportedly celebrates the birthday anniversary of John Wilkes Booth), may well offer the opinion that it was a mistake to let Mandela out of prison - or even that the young resistance leader should have been given the death penalty.
There is an amazing hatred within our societies for the very concept of equality, and naturally, hatred for those who promote it. Imagine - a profoundly lovely song by John Lennon promoting equality and peace - is certainly not respected or loved by any of those who do not love the likes of Mandela or the others mentioned above. Certainly many speak openly against John Lennon and probably could not even listen to that beautiful song, which contains some of the finest sentiments ever set to music. One of my all-time favorites because I love peace and equality.
I've purposely avoided directly linking my thoughts this morning to my most recent post prior to this one, but it's impossible to miss the obvious.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
INclusive -- EXclusive
Compassionate -- Disinterested
Involved -- Distant
Tolerant -- Unforgiving
Broadminded -- Narrow
Lenient -- Exacting
Suffering -- Insufferable
Liberal -- Conservative
Democrat -- Republican
Inclusive -- Exclusive
Not just words on a list; these are observations from news and politics. I am politically an Independent, so I get to watch from a perch as separated as I can manage, observing how the two major parties operate. I like the left side far better in most policy fights. I prefer the characteristics in the left column.
Never have I understood the attitude of desire to GET and to HAVE at the expense of others. The desire to GIVE and to SHARE makes my personal world a better place.
I live among Republicans. Do they ever give? Absolutely. Some wealthy neighbors have even been helpful to me personally. And on the grand scale, multi-millionaires give a great deal in numbers of dollars to charities and they pay taxes; the combination often totals as much as 25%, 35% or even more of their wealth. This leaves them with only many more millions to keep and to use in their struggle through life. On the macro level, the wealthy are able to do great things with their financial strength, and many do. [Witness the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates whose politics I don't even know but whose generosity is legendary.] Others may do awful things with it instead. [Witness the likes of Charles and David Koch whose politics I know very well and whose self-interest is legendary.]
I do realize that by listing those words in the introduction I am emphasizing huge generalities, but I am suggesting that we step back and look at the huge picture - the "macro" view. Do I know Democrats who are selfish and Republicans who are generous - on the micro level? Absolutely. But I am asking that you see the macro view and consider our nation's plight.
Observe Democrats. Do they give? Almost constantly, whether they have much to give or almost nothing (the "widow's mite," so to speak.) But more than just giving their meager amounts from their nominal wealth, they seem to want to see others benefit as much as possible, respecting the effort and strengths expended. (And policies generated by Democratic politicians tend more toward that inclusive attitude than do the policies prefered by Republicans.) If I am down-and-out for whatever reason, I will consider turning to them instead of the wealthy Republicans I know. Why? Because even though liberals may have little, they often share it with delight. Far better for me to accept miniscule amounts from truly giving people than to receive much larger amounts from those who have plenty and may give readily but will hold a string attached.
Happy Thanksgiving, regardless of your own views!
Involved -- Distant
Tolerant -- Unforgiving
Broadminded -- Narrow
Lenient -- Exacting
Suffering -- Insufferable
Liberal -- Conservative
Democrat -- Republican
Inclusive -- Exclusive
Not just words on a list; these are observations from news and politics. I am politically an Independent, so I get to watch from a perch as separated as I can manage, observing how the two major parties operate. I like the left side far better in most policy fights. I prefer the characteristics in the left column.
Never have I understood the attitude of desire to GET and to HAVE at the expense of others. The desire to GIVE and to SHARE makes my personal world a better place.
I live among Republicans. Do they ever give? Absolutely. Some wealthy neighbors have even been helpful to me personally. And on the grand scale, multi-millionaires give a great deal in numbers of dollars to charities and they pay taxes; the combination often totals as much as 25%, 35% or even more of their wealth. This leaves them with only many more millions to keep and to use in their struggle through life. On the macro level, the wealthy are able to do great things with their financial strength, and many do. [Witness the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates whose politics I don't even know but whose generosity is legendary.] Others may do awful things with it instead. [Witness the likes of Charles and David Koch whose politics I know very well and whose self-interest is legendary.]
I do realize that by listing those words in the introduction I am emphasizing huge generalities, but I am suggesting that we step back and look at the huge picture - the "macro" view. Do I know Democrats who are selfish and Republicans who are generous - on the micro level? Absolutely. But I am asking that you see the macro view and consider our nation's plight.
Observe Democrats. Do they give? Almost constantly, whether they have much to give or almost nothing (the "widow's mite," so to speak.) But more than just giving their meager amounts from their nominal wealth, they seem to want to see others benefit as much as possible, respecting the effort and strengths expended. (And policies generated by Democratic politicians tend more toward that inclusive attitude than do the policies prefered by Republicans.) If I am down-and-out for whatever reason, I will consider turning to them instead of the wealthy Republicans I know. Why? Because even though liberals may have little, they often share it with delight. Far better for me to accept miniscule amounts from truly giving people than to receive much larger amounts from those who have plenty and may give readily but will hold a string attached.
Happy Thanksgiving, regardless of your own views!
Thursday, November 21, 2013
November 22, 1963
Hard to believe tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most despicable acts in our known history.
Walking down the aisle on the third floor of the Sussman & Co textile warehouse in the riverfront district of Cincinnati when the news came over the always-playing radio, I stopped and felt frozen to the floor. Nothing in my innocent eighteen years of life had so hammered my conciousness of the world outside. Then I was shaken almost as severely when a short time later, while glued to television news for the weekend, I was so suddenly worldly-wise as to predict the demise of one Lee Harvey Oswald. It's true, and so profoundly recalled still today, that I told my housemate a day before Jack Ruby appeared out of the crowd at police headquarters, that I didn't think Oswald would live to stand trial. Then I watched his own shooting.
Innocence shattered!
Maybe finally, this year so long after the fact, I will ask my brother of his reaction on that day in '63. It was his twenty-first birthday. What a way to remember one's big, long-awaited milestone. How did he "celebrate?" What madness did he feel over the assassination? Was it similar to my own unbelieving state of almost blind rage and confusion?
Maybe this is the year I can finally ask him. But fifty years is not enough to ease the pain - it has been only more years and more pain to stand between the dates. I am in pain again with every view of the TV replays of that awful event.
My personal Camelot crumbled at the age of eighteen. Maybe Larry's two-and-one-half year head start on me had better prepared him for the horror. Maybe not.
Walking down the aisle on the third floor of the Sussman & Co textile warehouse in the riverfront district of Cincinnati when the news came over the always-playing radio, I stopped and felt frozen to the floor. Nothing in my innocent eighteen years of life had so hammered my conciousness of the world outside. Then I was shaken almost as severely when a short time later, while glued to television news for the weekend, I was so suddenly worldly-wise as to predict the demise of one Lee Harvey Oswald. It's true, and so profoundly recalled still today, that I told my housemate a day before Jack Ruby appeared out of the crowd at police headquarters, that I didn't think Oswald would live to stand trial. Then I watched his own shooting.
Innocence shattered!
Maybe finally, this year so long after the fact, I will ask my brother of his reaction on that day in '63. It was his twenty-first birthday. What a way to remember one's big, long-awaited milestone. How did he "celebrate?" What madness did he feel over the assassination? Was it similar to my own unbelieving state of almost blind rage and confusion?
Maybe this is the year I can finally ask him. But fifty years is not enough to ease the pain - it has been only more years and more pain to stand between the dates. I am in pain again with every view of the TV replays of that awful event.
My personal Camelot crumbled at the age of eighteen. Maybe Larry's two-and-one-half year head start on me had better prepared him for the horror. Maybe not.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Texas Kookfest
And this time it's the world of Judaism that's getting Bushwhacked. It was nice to have some years without seeing and hearing from President Alfred E. Neuman, but it couldn't last. REALLY nice knowing his fumble-fingers were no longer near the nuclear (uh - that's nukewler, to Alfred) button. The fool destroyed most of U. S. integrity and respect; it's probably just dumb luck he didn't blast the planet out of existence.
But there's still time for him to assist in more mayhem, and tonight he's scheduled to offend the Jews with his support of those radical christians who want so much to prepare our little globe for the end of life as we know it. Those idiot Jews have to be converted to a belief in the carpenter they killed so he can come roaring back and beat the hell out of them. So say the likes of Alfie
The whole thing is sad and would be funny if it weren't for the dead seriousness of the fanatical elements of our society. Maybe after today, the bulk of our semi-sane citizenry will at least recognize the fanaticism at the heart of that buffoon who was allowed eight years to plunder the American image and the American dream.
As usual, I will choose to be optimistic. Maybe this blast of stupidity and offensive actions by the favorite son of the ignorant Texas right wingnuts will cause a beautiful backlash. Perhaps the semi-sane portion of the body politic will grow in number and beat down such fanaticism at the polls. Maybe there are enough Texans with functioning brains to even elect a capable governor next year. Who knows - the whole backlash idea could spill over to other states and we may witness the casting out of the demon tea party in other elections next year. Try to imagine restoring Congress to a working body able to perform its duty of representing the American people!
Wow! I began this wee-hours ramble to ridicule our former president and national embarrassment who is scheduled to do it again by struggling through a speech and raising money for a bunch of "Jews for Jesus" kooks in Texas Stadium. But now I say, "Speak on, thou fool!" The backlash that could result from this fanatical fiasco might just inspire a national turn toward sanity.
But there's still time for him to assist in more mayhem, and tonight he's scheduled to offend the Jews with his support of those radical christians who want so much to prepare our little globe for the end of life as we know it. Those idiot Jews have to be converted to a belief in the carpenter they killed so he can come roaring back and beat the hell out of them. So say the likes of Alfie
The whole thing is sad and would be funny if it weren't for the dead seriousness of the fanatical elements of our society. Maybe after today, the bulk of our semi-sane citizenry will at least recognize the fanaticism at the heart of that buffoon who was allowed eight years to plunder the American image and the American dream.
As usual, I will choose to be optimistic. Maybe this blast of stupidity and offensive actions by the favorite son of the ignorant Texas right wingnuts will cause a beautiful backlash. Perhaps the semi-sane portion of the body politic will grow in number and beat down such fanaticism at the polls. Maybe there are enough Texans with functioning brains to even elect a capable governor next year. Who knows - the whole backlash idea could spill over to other states and we may witness the casting out of the demon tea party in other elections next year. Try to imagine restoring Congress to a working body able to perform its duty of representing the American people!
Wow! I began this wee-hours ramble to ridicule our former president and national embarrassment who is scheduled to do it again by struggling through a speech and raising money for a bunch of "Jews for Jesus" kooks in Texas Stadium. But now I say, "Speak on, thou fool!" The backlash that could result from this fanatical fiasco might just inspire a national turn toward sanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)