WAKE UP And Realize This Is A Two Party Dictatorship

Nothing brings out the worst in Democratic voters than losing.

Nothing brings out the worst in Republican voters than losing.

And nothing brings out the scrawny, pointy finger of shame of both party's voters than the idea that some people have figured out the United States of America's political system is nothing more than a two party dictatorship and that's why some of those people don't vote. The owners' of these scrawny, pointy fingers don't realize that it is such a dictatorship and hence their 'tsk-tsk' and 'cluck-cluck' at those who do understand speaks volumes; or at least it should.

After an election such as the 2014 mid-terms, the 2000, the 2004 and so on, the spinners make a washing machine seem clunky and slow. Losing is winning!

Of course, since the Republicans won big in last night's mid-term we get wonderful examples of Democrats creating and distributing charming memes such as the one below.

Then, we get, from the so-called party of tolerance and inclusion a cargo ship or two full of the most prejudicial, stereotype and bigoted caricatures as one could imagine. All the while, they conveniently ignore how the Obama administration has continued and expanded upon the draconian path began with the Bush administration about, oh say, 10 minutes after 9/11.

BUT WAIT!

THERE'S MORE!

The Republicans do the exact same thing when they lose, too!

Yet, rarely, and boy do I mean rarely, does anyone pop their head out of the sand and admit that we live in a two party dictatorship. Wall Street and the Military/Industrial complex are the real party and those in national office are beholden to their owners. Some out there do understand this and act accordingly whether by not voting, at least admitting this has been a problem for decades, or actively seeking ways to overcome the dictatorship. But, that last part is difficult considering how entrenched the machine has become. It is easier to be a lemming, nay, a smug lemming, and follow the Limbaughs, the Savages, the Maddows or the Stewarts (who are all corporate shills by the way, get the picture yet?) and parrot their spewed garbage as if it were gospel.

One of the major activities of the two party dictatorship is sowing divisiveness with your favorite political footballs. Abortion! Illegal Immigrants! Racism! Guns! Health Care!

Look around two party adherents, nay, zealots, and tell me when was the last time any of the events listed below happened in the last 40 years.

- Abortion was outlawed
- Government storm troopers came and took away your guns
- You wanted to pick vegetables or fruits
- Government storm troopers came and ripped up your health card
- You must stop speaking English

Well, you get the picture. It hasn't happened because it isn't going to happen. Otherwise, we could no longer be divided. We might become like Toto and pull back the curtain to reveal to the others what is happening with that man. And to update for modern times, or that woman, too.

 

Children's Deaths By Car Accident Not As "Sexy" As By School Shootings

Forward:
"Sexy" is a term used by news organizations describing something that is:
"3) interesting, exciting or trendy".
"Apples and Oranges" is a phrase that is often used as a crushing blow to an analogy when in fact, "denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges."

*   *   *   *   *

When it comes to children's (usually defined as 17 years old or younger) deaths in school shootings, almost everybody gets wildly and irrationally emotional. Parents, educators and especially craven politicians' reactions to school shootings, whether they realize it or not, are fodder for both the Mainstream Media (MSM) and countless bloggers because the subject and reactions are just too darn "sexy" to pass up. When it comes to children's deaths in vehicular accidents, the reaction is, well, uh, fairly muted. In fact, children's deaths in vehicular accidents are so "un-sexy" that when one types in a Google search for, "politicians call for stricter laws on children deaths in car crashes", not only does one get over 861 million hits, but most of those hits are about children's deaths by school gun violence! A true "what the hell" if there ever was one. Apparently not only does the search parameters on Google think the shooting deaths are more "sexy", they also show that the "apples and oranges" argument is alive and well as, "comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges."

Why is this so significant? Let us look at the numbers. Between 1980 and 2012, the number of people killed in shootings at school is 297, which includes mostly children, but also adults. The number of children killed in vehicular accidents is estimated at more than 51,000 for the same period. The numbers are so drastically different that the free-for-all reactions that happen in the MSM and in political houses across the country over school shootings show that the topic is not only "sexy" but "damn sexy" as well. Looking at the numbers alone, one would think that the reactions should be diametrically opposite, but, of course, they are not. Why?

I mean, look, even when typing a Google search for, "number of children deaths by accident in home per year", and one still gets trafficked to sites about children dying in school shootings by the multitude, one is forced to admit that something is wrong in how we are dealing with the deaths of children. As school shootings over the years have resulted in schools resembling prisons more and more, despite the fact that the odds of one's child being killed is so extremely rare, and the improvements to car safety lag so woefully behind in comparison, one is again forced to ask: why?

While after a school shooting it is now de rigueur for a parent (more often than not the father) to begin a media blitzkrieg condemning lax gun control laws before their child's body is even cold; there is no corresponding reaction to the daily toll of over three child deaths in vehicular accidents. Are there mass condemnations or protests in front of General Motors headquarters? No one suggests or even wants to put the head of Ford Motor Company's head on a pike and parade it down the street to the jeering cries of a multitude of people. Although that reaction would certainly be a "sexy" news item in the eyes of the MSM, it just never happens. In fact, the gap between reality and Americans' perception of horrible, out of control gun violence prompted the Pew Research Center to publish a reality check entitled, "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware".

When it comes to gun control, there are extremists on both sides of the issue and they both can outdo the other when it comes to outrageous behaviors, which are, of course, imminently "sexy" to both the MSM and the craven politicians. However, when it comes to somehow really curbing the death toll of children in vehicular accidents, there are no corresponding extremist positions and not really even a middle one. The best we have is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), with no such opposing group such as Fathers For Soused Driving existing or even contemplated. MADD is a good group to have around, obviously, because a lot of the deaths of children in vehicular accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

Among the many things about the United States of America, love it or leave it, that make it so damn interesting, yes even "sexy", are the many inconsistencies and incongruities. From religion to mass entertainment or political discourse to sexual mores, the USA is a blooming basketful of apples and oranges. If one stops to think about it, one might wonder how the country has survived for as long as it has. Yet, while the continued overreaction to the woefully few children's deaths at school because of guns is undermining the education process itself and turning schools into prisons, any meaningful change in vehicular safety for the sake of "our children" is condemned to the "non-sexy" well of sickening silence.
 

Climate Change Deniers Should Be Executed!!!

AUTHOR'S NOTE:

An upcoming blog article will go into the details of why I changed my mind; that mankind does contribute to the climate change. I know that may leave some of you in a bit of a shock, unless you have followed me on Facebook. It happened shortly after my cancer surgery [see the many articles about that located herein]. I've decided to leave these articles as is.

(Flat earth - used under fair use)

It saddens me, really, that whenever I bring up the fact that I don't believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) I'm met with ridicule and derision. It doesn't seem to matter that I think we as a society should be doing more to protect the environment or that the laws we have in some instances have led to reductions in damage to the environment. No, it is far easier to deride and obfuscate than to have anything even resembling a decent debate. They think I believe the Earth is flat, or the Holocaust didn't happen, or I'm a agent of the Koch brothers, or...well, you get the idea. It's easier to ignore that both sides of the debate have an agenda and that more often than not that agenda is to poison the well or it is money. That alone should raise red flags, but if that even goes against rigid thought, ad hominum is the usual tactic. And after all is said and done, no one has ever wrote anything like, "here is what we can do to help protect the environment". Apparently, that thought can not cross a rigid mind.

So, I'll ask the question (again): what can we do as governments and individuals to continue to protect the one thing we DO have in common, the environment? Individually here are only a few things (research for more):
-Stop your littering
-If you don't need to use your car, use mass transit
-Turn off your lights if you're not using them
-Don't run your air conditioning with windows open; and run it no lower than 74 degrees
-Don't run your heat with windows open; and run it no higher than 68 degrees
-Don't use a leaf blower
-Don't use a gas powered lawn mower
-If you can walk to your destination than do so
-If you can work from home than do so
-Don't leave your computer on 24/7
-Dispose of hazardous materials correctly
 

Governments can do many things, but one thing they shouldn't do is burden the individual with more taxes. Burden the corporations that damage the environment (and we know who they are) with more taxes most certainly. Governments here are only a few things (research for more and write to your representatives [you do write to them, right?]):
-Strengthen laws that protect the water we drink
-Strengthen laws that protect our rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution
-Strengthen laws that protect our air
-Strengthen laws against the use of hazardous materials in our products which are obviously harmful to people (especially children and the elderly)
-Pass laws that really do punish corporations that recklessly harm our environment (I'm looking at you BP and Exxon)
-Pass laws that require polluting corporations to meet certain obvious standards of safety

Whether or not you believe in ACC or not, just adopting the idea that we are stewards of our environment is a no brainer.
P.S., I still have not received a reply from my U.S. senators regarding my concerns about the Fukushima disaster and what is being done to protect the environment. That's too bad, because Fukushima will haunt us all if something is not done.

Of "Honest Rapes" And Abortions

These male politicians running around wanting to control women's bodies have said and/or done some pretty inhumane things over the years, but this election cycle has brought out perhaps the most inhumane statements.

The latest comes from Ron Paul, who is the darling of some because he's so anti-war; yeah, well so what? During an interview recently, Dr. Paul, who is decidedly anti-abortion, actually said this regarding abortion and rape:

"If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen."

An honest rape? What the fuck does he mean? Later we find out, when he offers a straw man story about a woman who is seven months pregnant and wants an abortion because she was raped, well, that's a "different story". Different perhaps, but definitely what Dr. Paul considers a dishonest rape! Luckily, there are still some folks who haven't fallen under the Dr. Paul spell and can call this sort of talk for the inhumanity it is.

Another inhumane and down right dangerous comment comes from the Right's frothiest candidate, Rick Santorum. He has a plan when it comes to abortions:

"I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I don't--I've never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them."

Apparently, Santorum makes no distinctions between honest and dishonest rapes.

The current occupant of the White House, President Obama, while a devout Christian, has tossed a few bones to his liberal admirers when it comes to abortion. While he doesn't believe that federal money should be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother, he did sign an Executive Order removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells. In his capacity as a democratic president, of course, he is obligated to uphold the Constitutional right to abortion.

And we don't know where he stands on honest or dishonest rapes.