Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

Before the elections the candidates go out and say, promise, swear whatever increases their poll counts, making sure to hit the hot topic for the day. Every move is a choreographed photo op. Every utterance a pithy quotable. Every look judged. We elect these people because they happened to say our favorite buzz word, or they look good, or whatever reason we come up with to convince oursleves that are votes count and that the candidate we elect will change things for the better. Our candidate is always the truthful one, the knight in shining armor who will fix the mess left by the previous administration. The candidates play the game of telling us what we want to hear and we accept it because the reality - that our Government doesn't belong to us - hurts too much.

Bush ran on a platform of no unnecessary wars, of not spreading our forces thin. Bush was trying to show that his Administration wouldn't have the military spread of Clinton's. Now look at us - Afghanistan, Iraq, and a few other places - we're everywhere, spreading the good words of Democracy (and Jesus). And it's come out repeatedly that Bush had a willie - a private agenda - for taking over Iraq. Nothing would prevent him from doing that, certainly not concepts like Truth and American Credibility.

Yet if Kerry wins things will likely not change because (1) we don't know Kerry's private agenda (and I'm not even referring to Skull and Bones); (2) he can keep things at least status quo claiming popular support; and (3) the infrastructure to keep things the way they are is in place. He's not going to simply pull our troops out of Iraq. There's too much exploitative goodness for business growth. And all the military bases we're building, we just can't shut them down. We're in Iraq whether we like it or not, and change ain't gonna happen any time soon.

To counter personal agendas we should increase the role of the voting American Public. We should be able to decide if our tax money should go to various Government sectors and what proportion. I covered this idea in a previous blog. The Budget should be explicit - no black holes - and written for the American Public to digest. Policy loopholes, like attaching (pork-laden) riders to laws, should be removed. Accountability should be the new buzzword.

Would you chose to pay the continued occupation of Iraq and if so how much. If we've spent roughly 100 billion so far and we have a (high ball) population of 300 million Americans that's only about $333 per person. Of course, those 300 million people is a gross overestimate and includes many folks who don't or can't pay taxes but would you be willing to spend a paltry $333 to keep hold of Iraq? In return you get...a nice feeling of helping a previously oppressed people, who may or may not want us there.

Don't be surprised if Kerry gets elected, turns around and asks for another large sum of money to continue operations in Iraq. Maybe if Kerry has any cajones, instead of Halliburton feeding the troops and overcharging for the privilege, he'll request a new contract be put out for open bids. Yeah, right.

Modern Luddite
No DSL. No pagers or beepers. No PDAs. No cable or satellite TV. No wristwatch. One cell phone. DVD via Playstation2. Dial-up modem.

I still feel too plugged in. My goal is to not be at the mercy of spammers, telemarketers, work, and pressures in general. Life should be more than electronic repression.

How long before we drive cars that have mouth inserts to monitor your alcohol level? Or cell phones/PDAs that monitor your vitals and thoughts (and quietly report them to a "secure" Government database)? How long before what we say and think can be measureable and punishable by law?

Don't misunderstand me. I like technology but like everything else in Life it has to be taken with moderation. I worry about ways that our Government plans to use technology for "our own good and safety". Can't happen? Hey, we couldn't fly not so long ago and "The Matrix" is only a movie...

These two words were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the Red Scare of the '50s, I guess, to distinguish us from those godless Commies. Unfortunately they got the logic wrong and many people believed that if you didn't believe in God you must be a Commie, or at least some sort of enemy. What would have been better and more truthful is if they had inserted "Under The Almighty Dollar". That way the religious diversity that is America would not be a matter of current debate and the Pledge would be more realistic to the fabric that is America.

Under Heaven

From Reuters: "Pope Says Sundays for God, Not Sports" - "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of 'weekend' dominated by such things as entertainment and sport, people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens," the pontiff said in a speech to Australian bishops.

Locked within a horizon so narrow - if that is not the very definition of most if not all religious-based mindsets. His statement could be easily re-wroded to read: "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of 'weekend' dominated by such things as religious practices, people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens."

I guess Freedom of Thought is only for the rich and powerful. The rest of us are expected to be un-educated and obedient to the Religious leaders, Political Leaders, and Mass Marketers. Our existence will be limited to working, to paying taxes, and watching mindless entertainment until we die. The wonderful outdoors, the "Heavens" will belong to those who can afford the permits, who can afford to get away from civilization.

They could at least legalize drugs...

I got a call from the Principal at the local Elementary School. Would I please see her regarding my eldest son? Uh-oh. My eldest is in 3rd grade and a good student. What trouble did he get in to? Arson? Pitching pennies? Saying a bad word? Drugs? With my intestines gurgling off I went to see her.

Fighting. My eldest son - gentle, sweet kid - was busted for fighting. Apparently he ran across the playground and accosted another kid, a known bully. Despite the other kids reputation, the attack was unprovoked. The Principal called my kid in from class for an explanation. He came sheepishly in, saw me and frowned.

"Well," I said, "explain yourself."

He took a deep breath and said:

"I had to beat him up. He had been picking on me all week, calling me names. When I saw him on the playground he was picking up rocks and I knew he was going to throw them at me. I went over and challenged him. He lied to me and said he didn't have any rocks but I saw him pick up rocks..."

"From across the playground?" I asked.

"He was bent over getting rocks," said my kid.

"Could he have been doing something else, like tieing his shoe?" I asked.

"Maybe, but he's such a liar. He had rocks. I know it!" said my kid.

"Continue please," prompted the Principal.

"Like I said I knew he had rocks and I knew that if he had rocks he would throw them at me and hurt me so I attacked him first. That's it." concluded my kid.

"The other kid didn't have any rocks on him," clarified the Principal. She stood up and said:

"We can't have violence - provoked or otherwise - in our schools. It only leads to more violence. What your kid did was wrong. He attacked someone under false pretenses..."

"I thought he had rocks..." protested my kid.

"You thought wrong. However, you did remove a known bully from the playground. However other bullies are now jockeying to fill the void. You've made the playground less safe and you've set a dangerous precendent. Now any kid who thinks he may be victimized may strike out at someone they perceive as a threat whether real or not. Worse, as Principal, you've made my job as school overseer that much harder." She sat back down with a sigh.

"What's the punishment?" I asked, "Suspension, detention...?"

"No," said the Principal, "because his actions directly followed the example set by President Bush, I have to give him this Commendation of Merit for being a Patriotic American."

And with that she gave him a big blue ribbon. We left the office with my kid grinning proudly, walking a tad straighter and firmer. And, as for me, my intestines kept on gurgling.

Here's a line of solution regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.

First, don't make it optional. Either make it mandatory or eliminate all together. We're either Americans United or the Pledge is unnecessary.

If the Pledge is deemed mandatory get rid of "Under God" which is obviously religious in its origin and divisive in its practice.

If the Pledge retains "Under God" then to simply change the underlying belief of the existence in a God to fact, have those who believe in such show demonstrable proof of God. Upon such proof the phrase "Under God" becomes one of fact not belief. If such proof is not forthcoming then revert to the previous point and get rid of the phrase.

One Nation. Indivisible.

Repeat the title. "One Nation. Indivisible." - pretty powerful combination of words, unifying in its force. We are one nation, indivisible, standing strong as one. One nation supporting each other, helping, trusting, and powerful as one. That's the way the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written over a hundred years ago - "One Nation. Indivisible." Beautiful and powerful in simplicity. And look at what it doesn't say. It doesn't make any judgements about personal beliefs or appearances, for as Americans we are one Nation. Indivisible.

Then in the 1950's the Pledge got changed because of (surprise!) political and religious pressures. The Red Scare was on and everyone knew that those evil Commies didn't believe in God. So the American Powers-that-be changed the Pledge to include two more words:

One Nation

Under God

Indivisible

But the power is now gone. The Pledge is making a judgement, actually two: the first that there is a God, something beyond mere belief, something demonstrable, and, the second judgement is that we as a Nation are united under that God.

This revision imposes a belief (in a God) that it has no right imposing. It presumes that we are united in that belief - which we aren't. The majority of Americans may believe in a singular God but that doesn't mean for the rest of us that a singular God exists externally, or that we should believe in a singular God, or that we are united in a singular God.

The addition of those words do not further unite us as a Nation. They divide us into believers in that particular phrase and those who don't. Further it directly violates our Constitution - one of our most sacred National documents by placing a religious statement into political ideology.

"Under God" is based on a belief, not fact. Consider the difference:


One Nation. Under Men. Indivisible. - "Under Men" is an inclusion based on fact. You're either genetically male or female, with few exceptions. You have no choice in this matter.


One Nation. Under Republicans. Indivisible. - "Under Republicans" is a matter of choice, a matter of belief as are the following:


One Nation. Under Flat Earth. Indivisible.

One Nation. Under Lakers Fans. Indivisible.

One Nation. Under God. Indivisible.

These qualities - a Flat Earther, a Lakers fan, a believer in God - are not inherent. You are not born that way. They are learned beliefs, learned qualities. You may be a Flat Earther because you read a book and you believed it. You may be a Lakers fan because you live in Los Angeles and believe they'll win another championship. You may believe in God because your parents dragged you to church or temple enough so that's what you believe.

These qualities are also statements of division. If you are a Flat Earther there are likely other people who do not believe the Earth is flat. If there weren't why even bother making the distinction. By stating "One Nation. Under God." we are also "One Nation. Not under God." and both are true - they both have Americans who fall into that group. But then if both are valid we are not "Indivisible". We are, in fact, "Divisible" by our beliefs of whether there is a God (and if so how many).

The Supreme Court plans to review the Pledge in light of "Under God". Although the vast majority of Americans support the Pledge as is it doesn't make it right. My guess is that the Supreme Court will avoid controversy and let the Pledge stand, thus keeping the Poltical door wide open for Religious abuse. If the Supreme Court shows any semblance of critical and correct thinking I hope they not only strike "Under God" from the Pledge but continue down the obvious path and remove "In God We Trust" from our money. And that would be just a start...perhaps one day, our Nation would be truly indivisible as we stand proudly together as Americans, knowing that despite our individual political and religious beliefs that with our Pledge of Allegiance we would be...

One Nation. Indivisible.

What will Americans wear this year in November? Flip-flops or Sneakers.

Flip-flops expose the toes to the air. Wiggle the Left toes. Wiggle the Right toes. Whichever feels better, whichever offends people less as toes can sometimes get rather stinky from all the dirt flip-flopped around. Flip-flops allow the toes to play together - wiggle, wiggle.

The problem with flip-flops are the toes are so unprotected. Wiggle the toes one way, then the next, and people may notice. Wiggle them together and people may question your intentions. With so much scrutiny there is no security for the bare toes.

Sneakers hide the toes. You don't know what they're doing. You have to trust the owner of the toes to tell the Truth. The advantage of sneakers is that you can't smell the toes until the shoes start to wear out. Too much sneaking around wears out the fabric, slowly revealing the hidden digital treasures and with that you smell the stench of sweaty, fungus laden toes. You can try deodorants or simply denying the smell but people know the reality. Only a new pair of shoes after a good foot cleaning will remove the stench.

Bush - A Justified End

Yet another former Bush worker comes forth and reveals that Bush et al had an agenda of getting into Iraq one way or another. This one was asked to find a connection between Hussein and 9/11.

Why are these people coming forth? Is it that they know it's the right thing to do considering what Bush has done and is doing to our country? Are they simply covering their asses in case Bush loses in November and investigations of illegalities begin? And they all support the notion that Bush and his cronies had plans to go into Iraq, one way or another. They just needed an excuse, real or not. They got 9/11.

Now, for damage control Bush is spouting yet another variation of "The Ends Justifies The Means" - that is, the world is better off without Hussein.

Agreed, but...


- There's quite a few rulers the world would be better off without. Yet we're not actively invading those countries because what's in it for us (the Administration).


- It wasn't worth lives lost and the worldly loss of American crediibility. Especially in light of the point above. Are we now the world keepers?


- Why not finish the job first with bin Laden while finding real, fact-supported reasons for invading Iraq. Or was there another higher priority for Bush?

It's tiring to read the same old letters from brain-dead Puckered Rightists that if we hadn't removed Hussein, New York or Washington might be a nuclear wasteland by now. I said a year ago - *IF* Hussein ever had nuclear weapons he wouldn't have wasted them on the U.S., not when Israel is right there. Likely he wouldn't have used them at all, knowing what the response would be from Israel and the U.S.. The whole WMD argument was a sham. Even Bush has said in his own limited way as much. We've seen Bush's damage control. He went from a definitive "They have WMDs." to "They have the capability for WMDs" to "Suspect intelligence but...". You can call Kerry a flip-flop, but Bush is an outright manipulator and liar. He has not made the United States or even the World safer by his actions. Terrorism is on the rise and Bush and his cabal are directly to blame.

Meanwhile the stupid eye-for-an-eye brutality continues in Israel. If the End justifies the Mean, why don't we put an end to the violence in Israel by wiping out the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships and instituting democracies for both peoples. Halliburton can have another unchallenged contract. Or better still...nuke the whole friggin' Middle East. Surely, if God loves or prefers Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, God will prevent the appropriate missiles from exploding. Whomever God protects gets to rule what's left.

Does Bush carry change in his pocket? Has he plunged a stopped-up toilet? Does he know how to pump gas, log in to a computer, use an ATM? Just curious...

Paper Tigers

Once again Little Miss Attila has it all wrong. She views al Qaeda as growing weaker as we track them down. She views al Qaeda as fearful of the U.S. and Britain, that we're powers not to be trifled with, not paper tigers. I would agree with her if not for one problem: By stopping the pursuit of bin Laden in favor of an unnecessary invasion of Iraq showed that stopping terrorism is NOT a priority for the U.S. And from that what do we have - terrorist acts occurring near daily, al Qaeda growing stronger, allies of the U.S. - such as Spain - questioning our motives in Iraq, it's obvious that Bush put personal ambitions above National concerns.

Even if bin Laden is caught and put on display (with or without Hussein), he will likely appear as a grand martyr against the U.S. tyranny, enticing even more volunteers for al Qaeda. The display will come off as nothing more than a pre-election ploy, more macho preening by a power-mad "President". Bush was warned early on that invading Iraq was a bad idea, that likely it would increase terrorism and bring more followers to terrorist groups and that's what's happened. Only recently has the military sought to close the Iraq borders to keep more anti-U.S. fighters from entering. Why wasn't that done immediately after victory?

What Bush should've done is not be so impatient with his private agenda. After the fall of Afghanistan he should have continued the pursuit of bin Laden, even into Pakistan if need be. The U.S. should have then said "Afghanistan harbored terrorists and is no longer. Pakistan is harboring terrorists. We're going after the fugitives. Pakistan has the option of helping us or facing the same fate as Afghanistan." What would Pakistan do? They'd have a cheesed off U.S. on one flank and India on another. Pakistan would have weighed harboring bin Laden versus a complete overthrow and given in. That's a message! The U.S. will track down known terrorists immediately and exhaustively, and you can join us or get the hell out of the way. That's a message! Using the soldiers currently in Iraq, with the budget now wasted in Iraq, with all alies firmly in tow, bin Laden likely would have been caught by now. That's a message!

Once bin Laden was brought to Justice one way or another, Bush could have ridden that wave into Iraq, assuming that the weapons inspectors found any thing.

But Bush had his agenda and a deadline. He couldn't chance the weapons inspectors reporting that Hussein was clean and clear. He had to get Iraq early on for whatever his own reasons were - oil, revenge, control...

And now America is hated, Europe is coallescing into an independent world power, terrorism is on the rise as is the U.S. body count in Iraq. We live in fear not just from terrorists but from our own Government. Is this the New World Order?

Evangelists in Iraq

Front page Los Angeles Times had an article about how evangelists are flocking to Iraq. Who said the Crusades are dead? A year ago I commented that Bush wanting to invade Iraq had many facets (oil) one of which was the religious aspect. That Bush probably views himself as the white knight crusader off to fight the evil heathen. Even Bush used that word "Crusade" in a speech to describe our mission. St. George and the Dragon II.

Yep, we can beat them militarily, economically, and religiously. Next for Iraq - McDonalds and Disney. Resistance is futile! They will become a white bread nation of peons, watching Survivor and Oprah, drinking beer and eating hot dogs. It has been ordained!

Dark Side of the Moon

They fuckin' bleeped Pink Floyd!! Floyd's "Money" always has snuck "bullshit" on to the airwaves - artistic license, freedom of speech, whatever but today on the local radio they bleeped it.

That's one way to sell CDs - "Hear the unexpurgated version of your favorite songs...".

On TV when they overdub naughty words...people who can read lips get to "hear" what we don't. Kind of ironic. Deaf people hearing the truth.

The Dark Side has taken over. Censorship is here. Today, bad words. Tomorrow, bad themes. Your thoughts must be pure - no sex, no drugs, no complaints against the Government!

At least the Internet is safe, right?

Front page Los Angeles Times: 'WASHINGTON - Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed agency professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.


The EPA staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. At the same time, the proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was written using key language provided by utility lobbyists.


The Bush administration has said that the proposed rule would cut mercury emissions by 70% in the next 15 years, and is tied to the president's "Clear Skies" initiative. Critics say it would delay reductions in mercury levels for decades at a risk to public health, while saving the power and coal industries billions of dollars.


Studies designed to address such questions are the ones that were not conducted.


EPA veterans say they cannot recall another instance when the agency's technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal.


The administration chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach," said John A. Paul, a Republican environmental regulator from Ohio who co-chaired the EPA-appointed advisory panel.


He said its 21 months of work on mercury was ignored.


"There is a politicization of the work of the agency that I have not seen before," said Bruce C. Buckheit, who served in major federal environmental posts for two decades. He retired in December as director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, partly because he felt enforcement was stymied. "A political agenda is driving the agency's output, rather than analysis and science," he said.


Russell E. Train, a Republican who headed the EPA during the Nixon and Ford administrations, said: "I think it is outrageous. The agency has strayed from its mission in the past three years."'

How much crap will America take by this Administration? This is a Bush completely out of touch with Americans and reality. This is a Bush playing with his buddies and no one else is invited, much less profiting. This is not Patriotism. This is not America. This is a flat-out takeover of the Government by our own version of terrorists. We are not only living in fear of foreign extremists but we have to worry about our own Government abusing its power - or bypassing its responsibilities - against us.

The Puckered Right appears to have 3 ways of doing thinigs:


1. Do whatever the hell you want, justified however sounds nice. Consequences are the other person's problem. That's what Bush does here.


2. Suggest something extreme like a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. If it's gets knocked down suggest something slightly less reprehensible but more likely to pass, like all the States passing Amendments. Parents see this a lot with kids. Your kid knows you won't give them $20 so they ask for $100. Then they ask for $20 which doesn't sound so bad after all. The idea is that the extreme request prepares the sucker for acceptance of the not-so-extreme request, although the latter request may generally be viewed as extreme as well.


3. Suggest a small harmless change - like raising fines for aired obscenities. Seems like a good idea and only violates the 1st Amendment a teensy bit. Next, expand that change a bit more, then a bit more, until you have a full-fledged censorship program in place. The old foot-in-the-door technique - Sales 101.

I'm almost at the point where I'd recommend Kerry just to make sure Bush doesn't get back in power. Almost. Still don't trust Kerry.

LMM Aniversary - Part Deux

Little Miss Attila also remembered our anniversary - sniff! - a whole year. My wife suspects I'm a closet blogger with LMA (an S.O. from many lifetimes ago). Not that my ex- and I blog together, no, no, never. Just the occassional crosspost and even then following proper HTML formatting. And despite the rumors we've never blog-swapped.

Just don't ask about same-sex blogging...

As is typical for Attila she makes a dig at how because of our invasion of Iraq Libya came forth to declare their nuclear program. "Oh, Mr. Mahatma--I've learned so much in the past year. Like how capturing one despot tends to adjust the attitudes of others with nuclear designs . . . [cough, cough]."

She conveniently ignores that Iran is beefing up their nuclear program and blatantly ignoring U.N. directives just like Iraq before the war. Sure doesn't look like Iran learned a lesson from Iraq. Whaddya say Attila, should we go into Iran guns a-blazing as well? They have oil...I mean...an evil government in need of overthrow.

And have you sent your definitive WMD evidence to Bush yet? I bet Georgy would give you a nice reward for that, perhaps your own oil well near Baghdad. He's quite generous to his friends, though you may have to get a Skull and Bones tattoo in a sensitive area...

One year ago Little Miss Attila started her blog and it was annoying. It ranted and postured and generally stank of the mental blindness that marks the Puckered Right. She supported Bush's Conquest of Iraq - rah! rah! - without question and even claimed to have definitive proof(!) that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. This blog, Little Mr Mahatma, was a direct reaction to her blog and in the year since, I've ranted and postured and tried to stink generally from the Waffling Middle although I tend to vary towards the Putred Left.

I suggested she send her definitive proof of WMDs to Bush a long time ago because it looked like a sham excuse to go into Iraq guns a-blazing. Her proof was the same kind of crap that Bush produced. Only now has she questioned whether she was shammed. Baby, shammed, scammed, and rammed up the rear without benefit of lubricant!

A year ago I suggested that when we look for bin Laden it'll likely coincide with Bush's election campaign and - lookie! - one year later Bush has launched a concerted effort to find bin Laden as campaign 2004 looms so close. And what has happened to Hussein? He's disappeared, awaiting his moment in the spotlight. Imagine: The U.S. captures bin Laden and then we drag out both evil, bad guys for public ridicule and damn good photo ops. Picture Bush standing over bin Laden and Hussein, arms raised high, looking victorious in his crisp military uniform. Hail the Conqueror Bush!

And has Bush made the world safer? Doubtful. Iran is loudly going ahead with their nuclear program. You'd think Iraq would have deterred them but instead the reverse has happened. Iran has seen from Iraq that we're militarily stretched (something that Bush swore in his 2000 election campaign, he'd never let happen), economically shaky, and politically sick of war. The Middle East is no more secure now than it was a year ago. Democracy hasn't and likely won't take root in Iraq any time soon. Gas and oil prices are skyrocketing and we have no reserves due to the War.

Meanwhile the Puckered Right focus on that most dire threat to the American Way of Life: Same-sex marriages. I've yet to hear convincing arguments why such marriages shouldn't be allowed. The first argument is usually about procreation, as if all marriage disappeared tomorrow, people would stop having kids. This argument overlooks those who marry and choose to not have kids. As I said before procreation should not be the reason for marriage. You get married out of commitment for the other person.

Another reason I hear is that any children raised in same-sex marriages will likely have gender issues when it comes to sex. Their role models won't be the normal heterosexual twosome. OK, can someone explain to me then whether VP Cheney, his wife, or both are gay, since they have a lesbian daughter? By the logic if a child is gay then that's implying at least one parent is gay, right? Yeah, stupid logic - so that argument doesn't hold much water.

Another argument: Same-sex couples would have to adopt or have kids via artificial insemination (for the women) or surrogate mothers (for the men) and that's un-natural, although their valid options for couples unable to have children naturally. Ask Miss Attila about the adoption process. They don't hand out children to anyone. It's not a drive-through service. They check damn near everything - environment, mental health, financial means, background checks, etc. If Same-sex couples can meet the stringent requirements for adoption, then bless them. Give an orphan a good home.

Or, another way of looking at it: Today in the news - two NY ministers were charged for marrying gays. So marry gays - go to jail. Molest young kids, get a new parish. Gotta love that old time religion.

MEANWHILE the House passed stiffer fines for on-air indecency violations, a subtle step towards censorship. The Supreme Court (*cough* Scalia, Ginsburg) reveals itself as having problems with impartiality. And Spain, once an ally of the U.S., has had enough of us and may start thinking on their own. It's become a different and scary world out there. The rest of the world has had enough of the ugly American thanks to bully Bush. 9/11 - the world was with us. Now we stand alone. Worse, we stand watching helpless as this group - certainly not Americans, not Patriotic Americans - runs roughshod through Our Government, ransacking our treasury and our future for the pockets of their friends.

And will Kerry be any better? Doubtful. With his Skull and Bones affiliation who knows where his true loyalties will lead if he takes power. Politicians, as exemplified by Bush, will say anything to get elected. Campaign promises mean absolutely nothing because there's always another agenda beyond that which is publicly stated.

Not one of my better postings but sometimes there's so much crap you want to vent about that it all comes out without much sense or style. I could hire a proofreader (I think Miss Attila is looking for a job) but then it's not me. Mistakes and all this is my crap and it's been burbling forth for one year. Happy Anniversary from LMM! If you wish to read some of the older posts visit the main LMM blog.

In debates it's always good to consider the other side of the issue. Sometimes you learn something. WIth all the hubbub over Gibson's "The Passion" I played a mental game and considered the other side of the coin. That is, I imagined myself as a Jewish leader back then and how I would react to events if the New Testament is to be remotely believed. Consider: You're a Jewish Leader living under Roman rule. That you can safely practice your religion depends on their generosity. They could easily wipe you out. What do you do?

A. Proselytize and try to convert those Roman heathen, possibly inviting retribution.

B. Show how great Judaism is by having loud and frequent displays of enthusiasm, possibly inviting retribution.

C. Quietly practice your religion and pray that the Romans don't find cause to wipe you out.

I think choice 'C' in this case makes sense. If you're under foreign rule you don't want to make waves. You just want to get along with your life as quietly as possible, like what the Jews did under the beginnings of Nazi rule. They didn't make waves. They didn't provoke violence. It was brought to them.

Back to old Israel. Things are relatively quiet but now you have a new voice, a loud voice, a disturbing voice. Someone is raising a ruckus, gathering followers, making a scene in your temple. What do you do?

A. Try to talk things out but he turns over tables and causes a near riot.

B. Ignore him but he is not to be ignored.

C. Have him arrested. Get him out of the scene altogether.

Again, choice 'C' seems the most logical if it boils down to having one guy arrested (and possibly killed) versus your entire religious community wiped out because the Romans are sick of the uppity noisesome Jews.

Jesus gets arrested, crucified, resurrected, and ascends - Hallelujah! The Jews don't get wiped out - double Hallelujah!

Now the ironies: If Jesus didn't get crucified and resurrected there'd be no Christianity. There'd have been no hatred of Jews resulting from the perception that Jews killed the Christ. That's like a kid thanking his parents for his birth by killing them. Where's the love?

Again, this is just mind games which can go in any direction. No offense is intended. I think I need to take a break from Religion arguments (which ultimately are arguments over speculations, like who's hotter: Mary Ann or Ginger) and get back to ripping Bush and the Puckered Right.

Indecency Fines

Better watch what you say on the Air. It'll cost you. The House voted to increase fines for indecency on the air. Our children's ears must remain untainted until they reach adulthood, sometime around age 62. First amendment? Heck with it. Morality must rule! And soon we'll have ordinary police able to issue tickets for foul language or behavior. That'll increase the city coffers, which means we can hire more police and/or send the Mayor on a nice junket to Europe.

Exempt From Slavery?

This is for those readers whom like me are peoned in a big company. I'm just wondering if any of you have been through this: You get hired as an Exempt employee. Exempt means that you get paid but your salary is usually expressed as "per year" instead of "per hour". You're a professional peon, not a menial peon. You don't get overtime or time and a half. You get your x dollars per year and put in your forty hours per week.

That's the theory. What I've seen repeatedly is that Exempt employees are required to work forty hours per week but are usually expected to put in far more hours...without pay. "It's part of being a professional." or "It's part of being a team player." More than once I've been called to task because I don't put in more than forty hours. They even suggest working from home on the weekends, telecommuting.

My reply is:

"When I got hired I specifically mentioned that I cannot work more than forty hours. I have a family to take care of and work to do at home. I will not *EVER* place business over work."

But what I really want to say is:

1. I expect to get paid for my work. I'm not a chump.

2. My personal time and work time don't mix because I have a life outside work that I consider more important.

3. Don't try to turn me into a work-aholic or a corporate slave.

4. You want me to work more hours? Fine, hire me a responsible person to pick up my kids, get them home and check their homework, make dinner, do laundry, and fend off stupid telemarketers."

5. You want me to telecommute? Fine, buy me a new dedictaed-work computer, a DSL line, and hire a responsible person to help watch over the kids, fed them, and do the weekend chores."

And you know what happens? At review time I consistently get dinged for not being a player, for not sacrificing myself for the company. This, despite that I get the work done without complaint from my customers. In fact, I get glowing reviews for my work but I'm not a team player.

At least I have a life!

Gods Grand Experiment

Science and Religion are often at odds. Evolution, Creationism, How old is the Earth - really? Why bother with Science if God will provide? Why bother with Religion if you can't prove God exists - you end up with a belief system built on an imaginary base.

But what if the two could be reconciled, could co-exist, and even mutually support each other? Wouldn't our live be that much easier.

In the grand Little Mr Mahatma tradition of "it ain't poop if it comes out of the mouth", I have a suggestion. I contend that we are part of a grand experiment by God. That is, she (in the gender-neutral sense - wink, wink!) started the experiment to create intelligent life. She started the experiemtn but hasn't intervened since that would pollute the experiment. And we may not be the only planet participating!

If you've ever played the computer game of Life or perhaps the Sims, we could be that. She started us (and all the other planet with life) with varying parameters to see what would happen. Would we evolve? Would we die out? What?

Imagine playing a game like the Sims but the characters evolve and gain intelligence, enough so that they contact you! That's intelligence and maybe that's what we're striving to do. Become intelligent enough to break "out of the box" and contact God.

Consider the benefits of the idea:

1. Religious types have their external God, waiting to be contacted.

2. Atheists don't have to worry about God because we haven't contacted her yet. So there is no proof of God.

3. Science has a quest to increase our understanding and knowledge of what is and perhaps, someday, we'll be intelligent enough to contact God.

Nice, neat, palatable.

Except for whether God is part of larger experiment. When we contact her we'll enlist her help on the new quest.

Blog Mirror Shrinkage

I didn't notice that when posting to eBloggy you have 6000 character limit per entry. I thought the character count was a feature and a nifty one at that. It didn't strike me as any significant until I noticed that quite a few postings were exactly 6000 characters. That's when I looked at the output and saw the truncations. For someone who likes to post en masse this wasn't good.

Blog Drive and tBlog both require me to post in topic chunks, which is most annoying but does allow for flexibility in receiving topic-specific comments. tBlog has proven to be a far more enjoyable community. In fact, I find I quickly do my big "one-shot" post quickly on Blogger, log out, and then after chunk postings on tBlog, I'll read comments, check out blogs, and generally hang out. Not even Blogger has that appeal.

So farewell to eBloggy and Blog Drive. It was fun but not fun enough.

Recently I got a comment about a posting where, as usual, I blather on about (TV) religious types who cry and beg for money. The commenter noted with irony that I have a Donation button. My questions is am I therefore a hypocrite? In this case, I don't think so. I'm not offering salvation, asking for tithe or whatever you want to call it, and then making you feel guilty for not giving. I have no intent of blackmailing you into giving me money for redemption of your soul or to make you spiritually clean. I offer no implied services and I expect nothing in return except comments.

If you want to donate - fine. If you don't then don't. There will be no penalty or reward either way.

Movie Pirating

Apparently many of the movies in the theaters have a tracking mechanism that, if the movie is copied, allows authorities to determine which theater suffered the violation. How this deter copying I don't know. Perhaps the theater will suffer consequences if they don't institute full body cavity checks of entering customers. The mechanism consists of red dots, seemingly random, but apparent enough that viewers are getting annoyed.

Is this the best the RIAA and studios can do. Annoying red dots? Cheese off the customers by ruining their watching experience: Tense dramatic scene and there's dots in the corner. The movie pirate won't care. The dots won't deter him. He won't get into trouble. The theater might but, again, who cares?

The solution is simple. Don't rely on a visual mechanism but an aural one. It would be simple to include random background sounds that serve as identifying markers and the sounds wouldn't be nearly as intrusive as the visual markers.

You Label Me, I'll Label You

Guilty. I hate being labelled and yet I do it. The "Puckered Right" being my latest sin. It's hard not to use labels. It makes it convenient as a way of generally describing someone without having to go into great details. And honestly when I see a picture of Donald Rumsfeld I can't help but think he's one puckered motherf.

Yet labels are dangerous and potentially detrimental to one's health For example, I would label myself a "weak" Atheistic, dogma-free Jewish, Humanist and if ever a combination existed for receiving blind hatred this would be a contender. The only way to make it "worse" would be if I was also a black, gypsy, homosexual. No offense meant to any members of those groups. Yet even by labelling myself I erroneously pigeonhole only part of my personality and part of the error is in how I view myself versus how others see me. Likely "asshole" would fall somewhere in a description. I hope I'm far more than mere words. Here's the breakdown.

A "weak" Atheist is someone who simply doesn't believe in God(s). A "strong" Atheist denies deities - period. Either way an Atheist is usually downright hated by religious folks. Atheists are usually considered immoral. Religious types say that to have a morality you must have a deity as a moral anchor. Complete rubbish, of course. Atheists can have a very strict morality. It just happens to leave out the God part. Religious types like to point out that Atheism was the religion of Communism and look how people died in the USSR, which I like to counter with mention of the Spanish Inquisition. One shouldn't confuse or mix Religion with Politics, which again is the usual argument about the evils of Atheism. I like to think that Atheists have a stricter moral code that non-Atheists because we don't have a deity to hide behind. We have one major excuse less for our behavior.

Dogma-free Jewish - do I even have to explain the worldwide glut of anti-semitism? Go see "The Passion" and feel your hatred rise up. Practice saying "pogrom". For all the talk I don't think Jews will ever believe that Christians and Muslims en masse can be considered "safe" to live among. This is not meant as a general insult - I have friends in both religions. I feel that the distrust and rhetoric against Judaism pervades those religions, despite the occassional bleatings otherwise from various leaders. In other words, if the Pope says today that Jews are okay to hug, not many Jews will be hugged. If he said today that Jews are OK to kill, many Jews would be killed. Growing up Jewish I felt and saw unjustified hatred. My Temple periodically got trashed. It's hard to impart to non-Jews that feeling of blind hatred, though blacks, gypsies, and homosexuals can likely relate.

Humanist. I don't believe in a deity, singular or plural. I place my faith - my unreasonable hope - in Humanity. I place my hope that we as a living people can transcend our differences and learn to live together. Human genetic variability says otherwise but I refuse to give up. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell after death - I believe Heaven or Hell are our choices on Earth. Dead is dead. If the afterlife were so darn wonderful let those who believe in it go there as quickly as possible.

A "weak" Atheistic, dogma-free Jewish, Humanist. Three strikes and for my own survival I keep my mouth shut. I'm not allowed to prosletyze or question the beliefs of others but they're free to try to convert and/or "save" me. And always the look of pity like my existence is so shallow and empty. Ironically I pity those people who live with blinders on when life can be so wonderful and beautiful. I don't want my kids chasing after a mythical heaven - I want my kids to enjoy their lives every day, whether rain or sun, whether with friends or alone. Life is the pinnacle of experience. There is no alternative.

Labelling introduces tunnel vision. You see people and things within a narrow preconceived range of definition. I don't like it. I don't want it. I try not to pass that on to my kids. I want my kids to be critical thinkers, to see things openly without prejudice. I don't want them to be at the complete mercy of Marketers or those who've mastered Rhetoric. Growing up in Judaism, I heard repeatedly about what a great religion it is because we're allowed to question, pushed to question. And so I did early on. Two basic questions: "Why should I believe there's a God?" and "If we can't know God directly, why should I worship?" I was told pretty much to keep quiet. Any answers they gave boiled down to having Faith. But even at a young age I felt that Faith wasn't good enough. Faith was too open to interpretation and manipulation by various leaders. Faith was, essentially, a lame and dangerous excuse. If you want to pass on morality and "life lessons" you don't need a deity to do so!

Restricting oneself to one religion or one culture without knowledge or experience of others is short-sighted. This is life - explore, learn, try. Don't be satisfied with pat answers. If God exists - hooray! We still have our free will to live without relying on a deity. And wouldn't God be pleased to see us acting in such a capable, responsibile manner? If God doesn't exist or if God is simply the great, grand power that is, then again we're free to live, aren't we?

Random Rants

I was watching basketball with one of my kids. He asked why all the players were black. In my mind the answers were all stereotypes: Blacks are better athletes. Basketball is a route blacks take to become rich. blah, blah, blah. I ended up not saying anything other than to root for the team but my wife had what I think is the correct answer: "That's the team the coach chose to put out there." I bow to her wisdom.

Over heard some co-workers discussing "The Passion" and how accurate and amazing it was - how it was so incredible that Jesus gave up his life for their sins. How can they know how accurate it was if the writers of the New Testament weren't there AND wrote many years after the supposed incident AND Gibson worked off of interpretations (of interpretations of...) AND the scriptures were written and rewritten to serve a political function in the new and growing Christian Church AND the mechanisms the early Christians Leaders employed to support claims of validity could arguably be applied to support calims of validity for Mormomism and Islam. What Gibson has done is give the Church another tool for them to exploit and in the process make scads of money. He could feed quite a bit of homeless with 200 million dollars but he'll likely film a sequel, this time about the Resurrection. Hey Mel, how about a film about the Spanish Inquisition and the violence the Christians meted out?

Consider this: Your country has been invaded by the Romans. Your religion and your life exist as a whim. You try to maintain your routines, your prayers, your way of life. And then some one starts raising dissension. Did Jesus get what was coming to him - perhaps. We don't know. No one knows. However if I went to my neighborhood church and started preaching Atheism, started turning over tables, I'd be lucky if getting arrested was the worst that happened to me. I'd likely get my ass kicked or get lynched. While I was being lynched if I started saying that I was dying for everyone's sins would someone start a religion based on me? Didn't think so.

Papa's Got A Brand New God

My problem with an overall deity is that he's usually portrayed as male, though - wink, wink - the religious leaders say he's gender neutral but for convenience (and tradition) they stick to the male identity. I don't buy it. I'll make my God in an image palatable to me.

I want my God to be a her. I admit it - I'm a male, a hormone-ridden, brain-between-the-legs, oink-oink, male. If I'm going to spend the rest of my life praying to a God she better be worth praying to and darn pleasing to the eye. So, yes, my God will be an eye-full, not in the anime style but more Frank Frazetta or Hildebrandt Brothers style. My God would be beautiful, competent, strong, yet accessible and nuturing.

Wait a minute! That sounds like my wife. No wonder I worship her.

And likely signs of past life. Kudos to JPL! If this, short of a spacecraft from another planet landing on Earth, doesn't throw a minor monkeywrench into various religious institutions and their dogmas I don't know what will. How can they explain away life - past or present - on other planets? Apparently in the near future JPL is planning to use space telescopes to search for indirect signs of evolved life on planets outside our solar system, by looking for anomalous spectrographs. If a planet shows such anomaly it may be that some thing has messed with the expected state for the planet. Or, to put it a little clearer, Earth's atmosphere would be lot different if we hadn't polluted it. Our atmosphere has changed because our of activities, deviating our planet from the norm for such planet types and thus showing signs of affective activity.

But now I'm deviating. Life on other planets poses a serious theological problem. Why would God bother?


Was it practice? Surely, God wouldn't have to practice in creating Life.


Was it on purpose? But why lay down geologic strata and fossils? Why mislead scientists into believing that processes other than God were the cause for what is? Is it a test of Faith, of Free Will, of Gullbility, of Intelligence?

Occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is usually the best. Certainly no explanation can be simpler than "God did it!". Yet, when you consider the evolutions of Life, the changes to our Geography, you have to question why God would go through the trouble of suggesting all these other processes at work. Worse, one easily gets the notion that if God created everything, he/she is gone, no longer actively involved. Our telescopes can see stars and planets forming - no God present. Is that how we formed? Why not? Why would God form us in 7 days but then have this formation process out there?

Sure, Occam's Razor may support "God did it" as a statement but applied to reality the razor would slice the God explanation out of qualifying. It's too Ptolemaic. You have to add too many orbits to explain things and eventually it all collapses under it's own absurdities. Religions, to explain reality, has to change their doctrines beyond a simple "God did it!" mentality. They have to evolve to embrace Science in order to make sense of what's happening here. That or the populace has to be kept in a state of scientific ignorance with critical thinking kept to a bare minimum.

Perhaps God doesn't exist. Maybe natural processes are the result of, well, Nature and not some supreme sentient power. Note that word sentient. It's easy enough to define God as the great ruling power but to attribute to it some sort of intelligence implies also sentience, and that's where I believe the dogmas fail. Why not define God as the grand power - synonymous with Nature - and leave it at that. No need to worship the grand power - it wouldn't care or matter. No sentience or intelligence, just IS.

Of course, the Churches would lose TREMENDOUS power and wealth if people held that view so God is made according to the interpreters need and can therefore be Just, Kind, Forgiving, Vengeful, and - why not? - Ecstatic, Romantic, or downright Horny. We interpret God in our image.

Maybe God is real and kicking back, sipping a double mocha capuccino, and watching our antics with amusement. But that's a God not worth worshipping and forget prayer then. If God doesn't care about us enough to get involved, well, I'm not going to get involved with God. If God IS involved with us his/her presence is darn indistinguishable from random events. And, I'm sorry, randomnessisn't worth worshipping either. Hey God! Got a suggestion. Hire a decent PR firm. Make the clouds form a message like "I am God!" or better yet just do a worldwide booming voice type message. Forget using TV preachers. They beg, scream, and cry too much, and ask for too much money - which sends the wrong message. Are you listening out there?

Prayer and Hope

Forgive me if I mentioned this incident before. On the news the reporter was reacting to a story of a girl kidnapped and killed. He said something like "We pray to God it doesn't happen [referring to the kidnapping]. We prayed to God for her safe return." Then he avoided the obvious conclusion that prayer doesn't work and said "We're angry that it happened." Of course, angry at the incident but how about anger at the Deity who didn't fulfill your prayers?

And the classic: two teams pray for victory before a game. One team wins. Does the other then stop praying before games? How does one become worthy? Winning games? So God loves a winner...

How much praying must people do before realizing that praying just flat out doesn't work. Billions of people pray every week and look what good comes from it. How about a day of no praying where instead you do something productive, like pick up garbage from the streets, clean grafitti off walls...something to make our existence on the planet a bit more palatable. How about Heaven on Earth even for those perhaps not worthy of such?

Government and Business

In a moment of mental clarity I realized the our Government is a business. Not just influenced by outside corporations but a true business. We are the customers. Granted this analogy is far from perfect. As customers we are required to pay for services through taxes. We can't easily shop around for another Government to fulfill our Ruling needs. (We can but that requires movement of home and hearth.) And many of the Services we don't want to pay for or use.

Ironically our Government as a business is a monopoly and is a perfect example why our Government policies are anti-monopoly. Our Government is bloated, wasteful of resources, poorly managed, and often times provides crappy customer service. If our Government were a true business it've gone belly-up long ago. But unlike most businesses it has a Military to make sure it's not going out of business.

What if our Government could be privatized or outsourced? I'm surprised the Republicans haven't jumped on this as a means to shrink Government and send money to their friends who'd be the likely recipients. Shouldn't have said it...Bad Mahatma.

On The Front Page

of the Friday LA Times: a picture of Bush campaigning in California. The caption mentioned that part of Bush's campaign theme was that Kerry sought to increase Government size. Would someone please hit Bush upside the head and point out to him that his "Administration" was directly responsible for the behemoth Department of Homeland Security which didn't shrink Government one damn bit.

Also an article about the organized Religious Right using the courts to sue those who offend them - in this case the same-sex marriages done in San Francisco. Their justification: They want laws banning such behavior because it violates their Freedoms of Religion and Speech. What the Puckered Right fails to recognize, or perhaps they do, is that if a behavior like same-sex marriages or an exposed Jackson nipple offends them and their beliefs...I believe the quote is "turn the other cheek". By striving to pass laws barring such behaviors they try to impose their beliefs on others and restrict others of their Freedoms. Freedom means exactly that - liberty to make a choice. Same-sex marriages bother you, choose to not participate in one - don't ban them. But as we discover daily the agenda of the Puckered Right led by his royal righteousness Bush is to restrict as much as possible in the name of Freedom.

No More Pizza Before Bed

Had a terrible time getting to sleep last night. I kept flopping between two visions: One of Nikki Cox as Team Rocket's Jessie from Pokemon, long, red hair waving the wind, wearing a tight midriff-revealing ensemble. She looks at me and says "Prepare for trouble..." - woof!

The other vision: I'm the director of Atlas Shrugged starring Hudson Leick as Dagny. I keep picturing her in one of the early scenes in the book where there's a train derailed and she takes charge when her stupid, incompetent brother who's company President can't make a decision.

Mind you, the visions weren't bad or anything but they kept me awake. I cast Hudson as Dagny because in the book Dagny comes across a strong, focused, and intense character, and if you saw Hudson as Callisto on Xena many moons ago that's her type of character. My alternate choice would be Nicole Kidman but she's beginning to look a bit long.

Presidential Morality Quiz

Dear Bush,

As President-Appointed you constantly invoke God in your speeches making it appear that you are not only our political leader but our moral leader as well. To verify this please take the following quiz:

1. I have never lied. (a) True (b) False

2. I have never used violence as a solution. (a) True (b) False

3. I have never used drugs or abused alcohol. (a) True (b) False

4. I have never abused my employment position to benefit friends or family. (a) True (b) False

5. I have never been arrested. (a) True (b) False

6. I have raised my children morally. They don't lie. (a) True (b) False

7. I have raised my children morally. They don't use drugs or abuse alcohol. (a) True (b) False

8. I have raised my children morally. They have never been arrested. (a) True (b) False

If you answered the questions all true you are indeed the moral leader we seek. However, we have documented proof that at least one answer should have been False. Therefore you are a liar, not someone we want in the most powerful job on this planet. More importantly, how dare you pose as a moral authority. You are a fraud.

If you answered at least question as False then you have a moral flaw and do not deserve the most powerful job on this planet.

See Georgy, things get much easier if you don't bring morality and religion into Politics since there is no high ground in a gutter.

In California the state Supreme Court recently ruled that a religious charity must provide birth-control coverage even though the religion may forbid it. The ruling passed near unanimous except for a lone holdout - a Bush appointee (surprise!) - named Janice Brown.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

So she's saying that the Government shouldn't decide what constitutes a religion and I agree. *BUT* the Government does regularly decide what is a religion. Religious groups seeking tax-exempt status must apply to the IRS which has to decide - essentially - whether to recognize the group as a religion and therefore eligible for such status. So really this line of dissent for Judge Brown is ludicrous and -yes - if the religious group is giving their employees medical coverage it is none of their bees wax which aspects of the coverage the employees use. Privacy you know.

Of course, there's a variety of solutions.

(1) You could have a religious-based HMO that wouldn't offer birth-control or any other sort of offensible coverage. Expect this one to become reality. Though what happens when religion and the hypocratic oath collide, like when the religion doesn't believe in transfusions but that's what's needed to save the patient. Where would the liability fall? Would exorcisms be a covered benefit?


(2) Stop offering the medical coverage and give the employee the money to allow them to join a coverage of their choice. It is cheaper to join through a company interface than as an individual but this is a viable option. Which then is more important to the company, their religious dictums or giving the employees enough money for satisfactory coverage.

(3) Don't hire employees outside of your religious bounds. Oh wait, that's illegal! Gosh darn.

In general though what to with religion groups and their tax-exempt status. I see churches everywhere, sucking up real estate, always growing. How soon before all American land belongs to the tax-free and sheltered? I've got a couple of ideas:

(1) Since religion is a set of beliefs bound by faith (that is, untested, unproven evidence) and we all have some degrees of beliefs based on faith, we should all therefore be considered religions unto ourselves whether en masse in similar spirit or single in unique spirit. We should therefore all enjoy tax-exempt status. Think the IRS would accept that? Do you think they'd accept "The Evangelical Church of Our Loving Saint"? How about "The Ecstatic Church of Our Lord's Everlasting Passion"? How about "The Church of the Everstanding Pecker"? If the members fervently believe in the groups teachings the IRS should grant all or none tax-exempt status, right? Wrong. My guess is that the closer you are to a mainstream "recognized" religion the more likely you are to receive tax-exempt status.

From the IRS site regarding self-employment tax (but holds for other payments as well):


"You can receive exemption from coverage for your ministerial duties if you conscientiously oppose public insurance due to religious reasons or if you oppose it due to the religious principles of your denomination." I oppose! I oppose! Give me my money back.


(2) Since the Government shouldn't be in the Religion business and all religions offers services, religious groups should therefore be taxed like businesses. No more tax-exempt status at all. The IRS would enjoy increased tax revenues and would have rights to access financial records for all religious groups, including ones on the fringe. Our security would increase because of the increased scrutiny of money accountability. And, of course, the separation of church and state would be reinforced.

Money Here and There

As many of us file our tax returns electronically I think it'd be neat to be able to specify how our tax dollars should be distributed. It'd be fairly simple to have in the software a spreadsheet type screen that shows how much you're paying and what categories you can distribute the money into. The categories could be broad like Military, Education, etc but would allow drill down to more details. The screen would keep a running total of allocations until your money runs out. Or if you leave any money it'd get swept up into a general fund. If anything it'd be a neat exercise to see how the American public would distribute the income plus it would educate the populace in the complexities of the National Budget. It might be fun too. Making taxes fun...

Early Sunday morning I flipped on the TV just in time to catch the start of the final Democratic candidates debate before Super Tuesday. Great! I'd finally get to hear some issues, get to see Kerry, Edwards, et al "in action", and maybe get an inkle of who to vote for in two days.

I lasted only the first question - barely five minutes - before disgust and loathing set in.

Dan Rather asked the following question and forgive me if I don't remember the words exactly. He said "Answer the following, spiritually or religiously - 'I believe...'"

What the blazes? What kind of political question is that? What kind of debate question is that? What kind of bull is that? Has the American political scene degenerated so much that:


(1) Religion is not just an issue. It's now a matter of "Who is holier than whom".

(2) Religion is an accepted component of American politics, of our Government.

All of the candidates answered "safely", invoking God or Lord into their answers. Edwards' answer started off on a footing that would have gotten him my vote (paraphrased):

"There are two Americas. One where everyone gets anything they want and another where they don't" - so far, so good, but he continues and ruins it.

"The President - with the Lords help - can change all that."

None of the candidates had the cajones to say that religion shouldn't be an issue, or even part of a political debate. None of them had the guts to mention, much less support, the separation of Church and State that is our National Law. None of them by virtue of their failure to side with the Constitution, our American Constitution, deserve a vote. None of them.

By failing to support the Law, by answering the question, by mixing Religion with Politics clearly demonstrates the Democrats and Republicans are both sides of a corrupt coin, seeking to overthrow our Constitution and Liberties for their own games and gains. So let's cut the charade and declare the two parties as one with the Republicans in control. They've won. By answering the first "question" the Democratic candidates fell neatly and completely into the Republicans arena. They lost and are nothing more now than lackey dogs barking for a piece of Republican power.

Perhaps if we do declare the two parties as one, that enough Americans will shake out of their political stupor to see the Emperor naked within his golden robes. Finally we could create a true alternative party beholden to the Constitution and the majority, working stiffs. A party where personal Freedoms and Liberties are strengthened so that we can mature as a people and a nation. Where Personal Responsibility is not a function of some Government Committee. Where tax cuts benefit everybody not just those who donated to the Power's political coffers. Where the Military doesn't suck up a good bulk of the budget. Where Social Security is a pot beholden to those who were taxed into it. Where Education and a clean environment are valid concerns. Where Businesses are held fully acountable for their actions and payoffs won't mean a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Where lobbyists and quiet money aren't welcome.

Yeah, right!

Kerry, Bush - whomoever. Whatever. The game is over. The U.S. has lost. We've lost. Let's just clean up the garbage, shuffle back to work, keep our mouths shut, pay our taxes. Massa will take of us because we're good, obedient slaves. The stripes on our backs will remind us of the price we pay for "security". But gosh darn we'll keep thinking about our dream. They can't take that away.

Right?

President For A Day

Here's an idea for a reality TV show: President for a Day. Contestants stump for votes each week, debating issues, running campaigns on a given budget. Each week the viewers will vote off one contestant until a winner. This person would be flown to Washington to act as President for a Day in full capacity. Every move and decision would be broadcast and analyzed. We'd get to see the real Washington running under someone we choose. It'd be boffo I tell you!

Addicted To War

Recommended reading is more than a comic book. Addicted To War gives a view of American Politics that will leave you thinking. Essentially we are a Nation of and addicted to War. This addiction drives our Government, our economy, and our policies and has been driving for over a hundred years. The book reveals the hypocrisy between what "They" say and what "They" do and just who "They" are.

Sadly, it doesn't propose any answers to breaking the addiction. Is it even possible when so much of the economy and political "face" depends on a strong military presence? It will likely take a humiliating military defeat before the addiction stranglehold is broken, either at the hands of China or a combined Euro-Asian effort to stop U.S. agressive presences from spreading.