Another Helpful Message for my Congressman

draft

 

My congressman is Salud Carbajal.  I have no idea if he is good, bad, indifferent, or whatever.  Still he is my representative and if I want something done in Washington I am supposed to contact him, right?  Ha ha, yeah.  Anyway I do.  Its a long story.

 

This time I asked why the scum who attacked the Capitol were not being charged with sedition, why Trump was not in jail, and what, if anything, they were going to do about that worthless scumbag and traitor, Senator Joe Manchin (D-W VA).  

 

I dont really expect an answer and I am sure I wont receive one, either.  I presume that his office thinks I'm a crank, which is fine with me.

 

So Here It Comes Again

draft

So here it comes again. The Democrats nominate a "moderate" guaranteed to allow no change and support the rich. Their candidate will fail to prosecute criminals on Wall Street, any change to the economy will be minimal. (Editor's note: Michael is just blowing off steam again).

So Its All Over

draft

The country failed and armed revolution is the only solution. Not aware of any argument against this. (Editor's note: Yes he is.)  Its too bad. Also I tried as a citizen to find a way to participate but failed. No one had any ideas and I sure didnt. (Editor's note: Yes he did.)

Some Ideas Beyond Voting

draft

Since democracy has failed in the USA, by which I mean the will of the majority of people in this country is ignored, I am collecting ideas for what to do about it. Short of armed rebellion (which I personally think wouldnt work), two other ideas are to (a) move people into states where the Republicans are working to purge voters from the rolls in order to add a few hundred or thousand votes on the side of righteousness and (b) buy a politician or two (how much do they cost? I really dont know). None of these would be enough to restore democracy (see for example the problem of the right wing nuts in the judiciary), so I freely admit these ideas are half baked but nevertheless submit them here in the hope it may stimulate ideas. I wonder if they sell politicians on the dark web?

Voting is Not a Solution

draft

Whenever someone tells me to "Vote!" as a solution to the current right wing dictatorship in this country, I have the following comments. 1. For one reason or another I have voted Democrat in all major elections since and including 1972 (I have missed some midterm elections), 2. In one election, 2000, my vote was ignored when the Supreme Court made their right wing stoodge, W. Bush, president over the wishes of the people, 3. In another election, 2016, Russian interference and the insane electoral college (which should have been fixed long ago) was used to put the moron king into power, again my vote was ignored, 4. The supreme court has enshrined Citizens United and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. Without these being reversed and enforced in law and in the field, there can be no reason to think that an election has been fair. 5. By allowing Republicans to put their right wing tools in the judiciary, you can count on any legislative or executive action to restore freedom will be reversed. Therefore any plan to restore freedom has to include a way to get these right wing nuts (like Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch just to name three) out of the judiciary and review and reverse any decisions they have made. Those three are just the tip of the iceberg. 6. Therefore, any plan you have that does not deal with these issues, the electoral college, citizens united, the voting rights act and the right wing judiciary is just wishful thinking. 7. I will be happy to vote but it is a sucker game as far as I am concerned. 8. Enjoy your dictatorship. I was in Washington protesting the right wing coup d'etat in November, 2000. Where were you?

Personal Choices in Our Little Political Disaster #1

draft

We are all bored with this.  Some people (me) think the issues are very important, others think it is a mountain of a molehill.  We dont really know how this how works out yet, but we have to make our choices and work with what we have.

So lets take this one step at a time.

Should I really call my representative so often?  Am I presenting myself as a crank? I know the different representatives keep a weekly poll of what their constituents say.  Thats not so bad.  So I am going to keep calling because (1) it indicates how seriously I am taking things, (2) it makes me feel better and that is no small thing and (3) I was not happy with some choices our representatives and government made in the past and this time I want to express my opinion.

Less Politics

draft

Its kindof pointless to discuss politics these days.  Its just too depressing.  I am trying to be more positive and upbeat.

Impeachment or not?  Pence or not?  Am I a crank for calling my representative? 

A few notes:

1. All republicans are evil.  Global climate change, reproductive rights, tax cuts for corporations but remove "entitlements", merrick-garland-brett-kavanaugh-neil-gorsuch, voting registration, corruption of the judiciary, hillary's emails.

2. Democrats are weak.  Merrick Garland, failure to indict wall street, the hillary campaign, always talking about bipartisanship, failure to impeach.

3. Constitution has failed.  Failure to deal with electoral college, failure to deal with gerrymandering, failure to deal with voting registration, failure to deal with term limits for justices (or other solutions), failure of impeachment as a solution, etc.

Other notes to follow.

See how positive I have become!  I am so much better than I was.

Reasons to Impeach Trump

draft


This is what I would have expected from our elected representatives by now.  Forgive my pretensions, I am not Jefferson.  All of the following is, to the best of my knowledge, just basically and obviously true, with one or two statements slightly slanted to make the point. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

- He has demonstrated a complete contempt for the truth, lying about matters of public record and often of national security causing harm to the Republic and to people's trust in their government,

- He has attacked the integrity and reputation of our institutions of justice and intelligence and made false accusations of bias and malfeasance,

- He has signed into law a tax bill that has dangerously increased the deficit, solely for the benefit of the rich and of corporations at the expense of all other Americans, 

- He has obstructed Congress in its constitutionally mandated role to investigate and maintain oversight of the Executive Branch,

- He has insulted our allies and threatened many of the international alliances upon which our security depends, 

- He has caused the families of refugees to be ripped apart and deliberately subjected refugees to inhuman and appalling treatment,

- He has unfairly attacked and called for the violent suppression of a political opponent, 

- He has encouraged racists and organizations devoted to violence in support of racism, 

- He and his attorney general have misrepresented the content of an independent investigation of matters vital to this nation in order to obstruct further investigation into his overtly criminal activities, 

- He has failed to nominate appropriate people for the various positions in the executive branch that are mandated by congress and has deliberately tried to avoid Congressional oversight,

- He has instructed members of the executive branch to violate the law and the constitution, knowing full well that his instructions, if carried out, would be a criminal act, 

- He has failed to act aggressively to investigate the hostile acts of a foreign actor who has deliberately spread misinformation and attacked the integrity of our elections,

- He has nominated grossly unqualified people to the judiciary in order to damage it, doing so with the help of a Senate Majority leader who has violated all our traditions of approving such justices, including in the worst case, nominating and approving a justice to the supreme court who is suspected of violence against women without proper investigation, 

- He has violated precedent by refusing to reveal his finances in spite of widespread suspicion of malfeasance, 

These actions and many more have damaged our nation, its institutions and its reputation.  He has diminished the faith that our people have in a fair and just government.  

Anyone of even the slightest integrity and loyalty to our nation would have resigned by now but, having failed to resign, we are forced to begin proceedings of impeachment which is both our duty and our right.  It will then be up to the Senate to demonstrate whether it has any integrity and loyalty to our nation or is merely a political tool of the poseur and criminal currently in the position of President of these United States.

Hunter vs Carbajal

draft

Once upon a time, I lived in CA-50, the district of Duncan Hunter, one of the more obnoxious right wing congressman in the house of representatives. I called and left a message, and was treated very well. I emailed him, and would get call backs from the 212 area code (Wash DC). Maybe every other letter, and these letters were quite inflamatory, would get a response, perhaps a position paper on the topic (net neutrality). Of course this was all his office not Congressman Hunter himself, and of course it made no real difference but it was nice, it felt engaging.

Now I am in CA-24, Congressman Carbajal, a Democrat, and after 5 emails and one office visit. Nothing. Zip. Do not exist.

The result may be the same, but I much preferred being represented by Hunter.

Message Number 4 to Representative Hunter (CA-50)

draft

I am still pressing Duncan Hunter (CA-50) regarding that secret meeting with Pruitt and the Oil and Gas companies. I wonder what was said. Maybe this is what the FOIA is all about.

Why the Socialists Will Always Be a Fringe Party in American Politics

For the first time in my life, there is a candidate for the President for the United States for a major party who has a chance of winning the nomination who is also, at least in part, a Socialist. There have been many presidents and even more candidates with agendas that came originally from a Socialist agenda, suitably sanitized and sold to the American public, but none to the best of my knowledge that could explicitly identify their origin as Socialist.   And there have been major candidates (and contenders) who have been slandered by their opponents as being Socialists, or even card-carrying Communists, who of course were nothing of the sort.  

But as long as one hides the origins of ideas, a reasonable portion of the Socialist agenda from the 1920s and the 1930s were achieved in this country for a period of time, such things as the 5-day and 40 hr work week are all from the Socialist agenda and were opposed by all the major parties as being too radical, back in the day.

So with Bernie Sanders being a leading candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, I thought it would be interesting to see how the “real” Socialists, the hardcore, the truly committed, what they thought about his progress.

The answer is too predictable to even be funny.

They hate him.

No, more than that. They passionately despise him.

You see, a real Socialist would never work with the Democratic Caucus in Congress. A real Socialist would never, ever disagree with the Party Line in any way. To do so would be betrayal, and that is what Bernie is in their eyes. A traitor to the cause.

So helpfully, www.truthdig.com has published a nice 6 page article on all the things you must be willing to die for to be a Socialist, or you are not a Socialist.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_it_means_to_be_a_socialist_20150920

For example, in order to be a Socialist, you must immediately call for the destruction of Israel in order to protest their “genocidal” policies against the “Palestinians” or you are not a Socialist. Say again, what? Although I think that pretty much every American wishes that particular conflict to go away and many of us are aware that it never will, to make that a precondition for Socialism means that the Socialists have no interest in being in any way a part of the mix of American politics.

This helpful piece goes further into the beliefs of a real Socialist, but most of all he makes clear that any failure to completely support *all* of these issues means that you are not a Socialist.  What I like about this approach is that it is very clear.  Clear writing is important.  Ambiguity can be good as well, but ambiguity allows doubt.  Ambiguity might promote inclusiveness and the point of this well written article is the opposite of inclusiveness.  If one could be a "Cafeteria Socialist" then there are many of their proposed economic policies that I think Americans would find appropriate.

Its all very well to say that we must prosecute Pres Bush and Pres Obama for war crimes, but I think it is going to be hard to build a consensus to go after both of them.   In fact I would venture that about half the American public would agree to one but not the other, and the other half the reverse.   

Unilaterally destroy all nuclear weapons?  That would be nice!  Call for full employment and unionized workplaces?  Absolutely.   Declare Global Warming an emergency and invest in renewable energy and turn away from fossil fuels.  I am all for it.  Nationalize all public utilities, banks, railroads and energy companies? You bet. Give full citizenship immediately to all undocumented workers?   Hmmm, thats quite a few people, isnt it  Give $600/week to anyone who is unemployed or disabled.  Sure! Demilitarize all police (e.g. disarm all police).  Uhh, well, uhh.

And he goes on and on and on, irrespective of whether or not any of these can achieve a legislative majority, and certainly without prioritizing.  They are all equally important.  I think by the time he is through there might be several 1000 people nationwide who will agree with his entire agenda.  Maybe.

Impractical is not the word.

I like it when he goes on to say ... 

Socialists do not sacrifice the weak and the vulnerable, especially children, on the altars of profit. And the measure of a successful society for a socialist is not the GDP or the highs of the stock market but the right of everyone, especially children, never go to bed hungry, to live in safety and security, to be nurtured and educated, and to grow up fulfill his or her potential. Work is not only about a wage, it is about dignity and a sense of self-worth.

Whether our Socialist likes it or not, or whether the Tea Party likes it or not, the American political system is based on being able to find a workable compromise.  Extremists who insist on moral purity make the system unworkable as the Tea Party has proven so well over the last decade or so.

So what this article convinces me is that Socialism, at least in its pure form, does not have a chance in hell in the American political system, short, perhaps, of armed revolution.

Understanding Our Cuban Foreign Policy

Just recently the US has “normalized” relations with Cuba, a country with which we have had an awkward relationship for decades. But this should not have been a surprise because the real reason that we have been estranged has become less of an issue as time goes by, but it is a reason that you will never read about in the popular press and even many foreign policy journals seem to be unaware, or choose not to bring it up in their analysis.

I will therefore, in my own words, describe why I think our policy towards Cuba has in the past been so intransigent and why it matters less today. It has to do with how we nominate and elect our President. The explanation goes something like this.

It is possible to win the nomination of one of the parties to be a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America without carrying certain key states, such as California, New York, Illinois and Florida. However, losing such a state, with its vast number of delegates makes winning the nomination that much more difficult as you must make it up by winning a large number of “minor”, in terms of numbers of delegates, states.

Therefore, it follows that if you want to be President of the United States, you must work very hard to win these key states and each of these states has its own local politics and political forces who must be catered to and appeased. The politics of California are very different from the politics of New York and the politics of New York and California are both very different from the politics of the State of Florida.

If you want to win the state of Florida, then you pretty much have to win Dade County. If you don't win Dade County then it is still possible to win the state of Florida but its much harder and you have to win pretty much everywhere else in the state. But if you want to win Dade County, then you pretty much have to win the City of Miami. It is basically not possible to win Dade County without Miami.

It turns out that the City of Miami had a large population of ex-patriot Cubans and most of these Cubans had come to this country because they had to flee the island of Cuba when the revolution happened. These people all still had relatives back in Cuba and the whole thing was ugly and they are, or were, hopping mad.

Now you may say, well, we can not run the foreign policy of this country because one little interest group has a grudge because they lost a war. Well, thats easy for you to say, but if you pissed off this group you were probably not going to carry Miami, and if you did not carry Miami, then you probably would not carry Dade County and if you did not carry Dade County, then you probably lost Florida and if you lost Florida then you may very well have lost the nomination of your party for the Presidency of the United States.

As this Cuban population has aged, their descendents, although still not all that happy about Castro and the communists, are not as committed to the cause as their parents and grand parents were.

And that, I propose to you, is one of the key reasons that our foreign policy has been the way it has been for many years. It is not the only reason, but it was certainly part of the reason, and it is a reason that with time has become less important.

The DEA Will Protect Us from Evil

Thank God for the Drug Enforcement Administration!  Without them, how would we navigate the moral obstacles and danger in our secular lives?   It is the DEA and only the DEA that is qualified to judge who will die in pain and who will not.

On the list of areas where this country has utterly failed to live up to its promise, add the item of how one may pass from this world to the next in the horrible health care system that we have.  If this is the best we can do, well, we are not very good then.   If you have had the pleasure of having someone die on you in the health care system, you know it is a pretty fucked puddle of shit.

One area that seems to have some consensus behind it is that when someone is wasting away from incurable cancer or other fatal disease and is in excruciating agony, that doctors are willing to prescribe serious pain killers to at least keep the patient from screaming pitifully at the top of their lungs and thus disturb the workers as they try to extract money from the other patients / victims.

But the DEA knows that this is wrong.  What, just consider for a moment, what if in the process of prescribing these serious pain killers that someone were to unethically sell them to school children, perhaps even with dirty needles.  Come here children, my father is dying of cancer, but I am going to give you these opiates!! HA !

So the DEA has come down harshly on this pandering to the merely soon-to-be-dead in screaming agony in order to avoid this threat of Percodan addicted elementary school children.

Here is a letter from the Attorney Generals of this country asking why the all knowing and perfect DEA decided to go back on an agreement they made with the states on pain relief for those in chronic pain.

But whatever you think, don't worry, you have no input into this situation.  You can not decide how to live your life and how to end your life, the DEA is going to do that for you and your opinion is not the least bit interesting to them.  The DEA will stand fast to protect us from ourselves and keep our children free from this nefarious threat.

Here is the link to the DEA letter referenced in this post.

http://www.managingpain.org/naagletter.htm

__________________________________________

Politics and Friendship

So I have a great friend in NY or I used to. We have known each other for decades but just in the last 5 years or so starting talking almost daily. A talented outsider artist, IMHO, we would discuss all sorts of important matters such as the stupidity of modern computer graphics and the failure of that movement, the importance of the Hollow Earth, Lovecraft, the Illuminati's role in modern society, Keats, Blake, Bulwer-Lytton and so forth.

My friend is well known for helping other people who are down. No one can figure out how he supports himself but among other things he is very frugal (but that is not enough). He has had some adversity in life but does not seem to notice. Like all my artist friends who are successful in some sense of that word, he works extremely hard, and is very productive. He has stood by friends in need on several different occasions that I am aware of even when it was not convenient (a test of character, in Southern terminology). Since I am impoverished because of my work and commitment to computer animation he helped me find a place to stay in NYC so that I could visit, which otherwise I could not afford. He spent a billion hours with me when I visited NY and really helped to make that trip great. His daily chats and emails would often cheer me up, and since I am currently ostracized and living in abject poverty, I enjoyed hearing from him. It helped to break the near total isolation.

And he is a die hard Republican.

Loved Romney, thought he would make a great president. Hates Obama more than he would hate Hitler. Benghazi this and Hillary that. Obamacare blah blah blah. Jews controlling the media, how much the Jews are hated, etc. I would hear this stuff daily, more or less, in chats on Google mail and by email. It was occasionally annoying but I enjoyed talking to him, he had high entertainment value. I presumed he was being occasionally sincere but often just provocative.

But he kept assuming he knew what I thought and that I was a typical lefty liberal, whatever that may mean. I kept telling him that he did not know what I thought, really. He did not realize that my third generation elitist Virginian reform Jewish atheist roots and the history of Orthodox and Hasidic rabbis in my family in the Eighteenth century or so, as well as my time at the RAND Corporation left me with somewhat eccentric and non-mainstream beliefs.

So one day, after reading about an hour of rants about Democratic villainy from his point of view I told him .0001 percent of what I believe. Just one time, after hearing this stuff from him literally every other day (if not every day) for years.

I told him what I believed on just one issue just one time.

That the Supreme Court pissed on the constitution in public in November 2000 when they installed their goon, Bush Jr, as president in a classic coup d'etat. That the NY Times was just a right-wing rag when it rolled over and did not even slightly object to this gross injustice thus revealing its true colors. That everything Bush did was therefore illegal. That every decision that the Supreme Court made since that black day needed to be reevaluated in light of this crime to see which of their decisions were legal and which needed to be overturned.

And he never talked to me again.

So what is the moral of our little story? I guess the moral is that you should never tell someone what you believe unless you are perfectly ok with them never talking to you again. It doesn't have to be fair, and it doesn't have to be reciprocal, that is the way it is.   We might also conclude something about how Republicans relate to opinions outside their cult, but we already knew that.

Vast Government Subsidies Are as American as Apple Pie

[Do not forget that the VFX Bake Off will be Jan 9 at the usual place and the usual time].

There has been a lot of discussion recently about various government subsidies and tax incentives to filmmakers who do certain kinds of production or post-production work in that country. The country that offers such benefits is in effect co-financing a film with their tax dollars, and in return, sees employment and other benefits brought to a very prestigious industry in their country that might not otherwise be able to compete internationally.

As always, in matters of this type, subsidies are not the sole cause of the situation. None of this would really happen if the industries in the subsidized countries did not demonstrate skill in the areas involved. In many cases, such as the case of the UK and London, there is a long-standing community there that is highly esteemed. Nevertheless, that industry is greatly nurtured and supported by their government's actions on their behalf.

Furthermore, let us not be naive.  This did not just happen.  The local industries have been working with their respective governments to get these advantages.  And can we perhaps suspect that producers and studios have also used their persuasive ways to encourage these governments to shower their beneficence upon them?  Yes, of course they have.  That's their job.  (2)

In the last month or so, three major events have occurred that will likely determine the fate of the motion picture visual effects industries in various nations for the better part of the upcoming decade. All three events are structural and examples of how governments manipulate trade and industry in their perceived national interest.  This is something we, the USA, does whenever it is convenient for us to do so, a topic I will expound upon in an upcoming post.  (1)

The net result over the medium term is that the American effects industry will continue to be destroyed, and that work will pass to three other nations which will develop the technology, employ the people, receive the money, the awards and the careers that come with it.

The issues involved in this matter are far too complicated to put in a single blog post at this time. The best I can do, with my other responsibilities, is to break it into about 5 posts on various topics in this larger subject. The topics will include (a) what has just happened that will set the stage for the next decade, (b) what the effect the actions will have on the domestic visual effects industry, (c) some of the history of international trade and preferential subsidies and other means and (d) the argument will be made that change will only be possible by organizing and working within the political system that exists in this country.

Failure to organize and express our interests politically, which is the current state of things, will result in the destruction of the American industry. Actually that destruction is nearly complete as it is, so the best that could be affected is perhaps a renaissance of those industries.

Without political action, there is not a prayer of success.

Next: Three recent events

___________________________________________________________

1. But if you want a taste of it, see to what extent our government is involved in the creation and current success of the aerospace industry.  This is not subtle.

2. Their job, generally speaking, is to make money by making entertainment product.  They make money a number of ways, but one way is to lower the costs of any given production.  If someone wants to give money, why not?

My Letter to the President of the United States Requesting a Bailout

As a few of you know, I have been working with my representatives in Washington in order to prepare the way for a government bailout of one area of computer animation, research and production, in this country.  The particular bailout that I have been working for is, of course, for myself, but I have no doubt that once this first effort is approved, that others will be able to apply as well.  The following is the letter that was mailed to President Obama.

_____________________________________________________________________

Michael Wahrman

Rancho Rincon del Diablo, California 92026

michael.wahrman@gmail.com

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC

December 9, 2013

Dear President Obama,

I have hesitated writing this letter for many years now but recent events have forced my hand. I hope you will understand.

Not to beat around the bush, so to speak, I have decided to request a government bailout.

My circumstances are that having done many years service, and having helped to create a billion dollar industry, computer animation, I find myself unemployed due in part to government policies (policies of globalization and of other government subsidies which our government does not protest). There are other reasons as well, but the impact of government action and inaction is certainly significant. Because of this, my financial well being has been severely damaged.

But I have hope. The US Government had no problems bailing out the malignant and incompetent financial industry in their time of need a few years ago, and I am neither malignant nor incompetent, merely guilty of misplaced enthusiasm and incorrectly assessing risk, just like Wall Street.

And lets be honest here, the US Government and society encourages people to be entrepreneurial without emphasizing the terrible risk of failure and the financial implications thereof. It seems only fair that the Government should therefore pick up some of the costs of risk just like they do for large corporations when it is convenient.

I know that times are tight in Washington these days, what with Sequester and the right wing Republicans out of control and on the warpath, but I feel certain that my request is so just and reasonable that you can find the money out of one of your discretionary funds. I feel certain of it.

So shall we say ten to twenty million $US? Too little and we might have to come back a second time which would be annoying.    Too much and people would think we were being extravagant. Lets split the difference and go for a clean $15M US. What do you think?

I know you are very busy, so feel free to assign the details of this request to one of your assistants for the details of the money transfer and other paperwork issues.

Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Probably email is the best way to reach me.

Congratulations on your reelection, keep up the good work.   By the way,  my family has been loyal Democrats for at least three generations.

                                                    Sincerely,

                                                   Michael Wahrman

The Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis

Update 12/5/2013.  The Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good have created a petition to protest the attacks on Pope Francis by Rush Limbaugh.  Although not a Catholic, which I made clear in the comments section, I signed this petition and I encourage you to consider doing so as well.  Rush's attack was delightfully stupid, and we should take advantage of this opportunity which he has so unintentionally provided.   http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/limbaugh

One of the interesting things about the second decade of the 21st century is the complete silence among the political classes of America regarding poverty and its impact on its citizens. Complete indifference, absolute unwillingness to discuss either the causes, the effects and potential cures. Some of them fall back on bankrupt misunderstandings of discredited economic theory. Some deny the problem exists. Some acknowledge some of the problems but propose no policies to address the issues. Some propose policies or changes that at their best might address a few percent of the problem.

None of our civic leaders seem willing to discuss the issues honestly and address some real plans about what needs to be done. There is no Roosevelt or New Dealer or Tolstoy (1) among them.

But of all the leaders in this country and the world there is one who is willing to speak out on these issues: the issues of poverty and its effect on people's lives and of reliance on an economic theory that has no evidence to support it.

And that is "our" new Pope, Pope Francis.

A very photogenic Pope, it seems to me.

In his "Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today's World", we have a very amusing jeremiad, so to speak, against injustice and greed in the world. Among other things we have the use of entertaining terminology such as kerygma and mystagogical. (2)

The complete statement can be found here.

Here are some excerpts

No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

Or .... 

191. In all places and circumstances, Christians, with the help of their pastors, are called to hear the cry of the poor. This has been eloquently stated by the bishops of Brazil: “We wish to take up daily the joys and hopes, the difficulties and sorrows of the Brazilian people, especially of those living in the barrios and the countryside – landless, homeless, lacking food and health care – to the detriment of their rights. Seeing their poverty, hearing their cries and knowing their sufferings, we are scandalized because we know that there is enough food for everyone and that hunger is the result of a poor distribution of goods and income. The problem is made worse by the generalized practice of wastefulness”.

192. Yet we desire even more than this; our dream soars higher. We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a “dignified sustenance” for all people, but also their “general temporal welfare and prosperity”.  This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative,  participatory and mutually supportive labour that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives. A just wage enables them to have adequate access to all the other goods which are destined for our common use.

But this is my favorite ...

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

When was the last time we heard a presidential candidate speak clearly about economic disadvantage, dismiss the obviously failed principles of the rich helping the poor and advocate such unselfish goals? Any politician that did so would be crucified, so to speak, by the right-wing and the moneyed interests.

In a world of compromise and the failure of ethics, what a relief it is to read by a member of the power elite such an unambiguous call for improving the world. The obvious question is, should we call for Pope Francis to run for President?

[See this link for our discussion of what Atlantean Crystal Wisdom predicted about Pope Francis.
http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2013/03/using-esoteric-knowledge-to-see-future.html]

__________________________________________________

1. Tolstoy famously wrote an essay about the starving poor of Moscow whose title was "What then is to be done?". Later, when Lenin called for the Bolshevik revolution, his essay title was the same in homage to Tolstoy.

2. Kerygma is used in the New Testament to refer to preaching and its later use seems to refer to the larger body of what it is that Jesus was called upon to preach, what was his "program" so to speak. A mystagogue is one who initiates others into the mysteries of a religion.

A Modest Solution to the Syrian Civil War and Related Regional Problems

When the domestic situation looks unsolvable it is a time honored solution to look to foreign policy as a way of distracting the locals from the government-created misery that is their life. Not only is this approach used successfully by governments, it can be used successfully by individuals to help avoid thinking and working on their own problems, a sort-of trickle down "distract the miserable" approach. Thus I have been putting considerable time into the Syria issue and whether we should start firing missiles at that part of the world.

The answer, I am happy to say is, No, we should not fire missiles. Nothing we do there will help the situation, anything that we do could have unforseen results. It is a no win situation for us. I am sorry that the Syrians and their neighbors are killing each other, and I am sorry that some of these people are assholes. But that is not a good enough reason to go to war.

But if you say we must do something, I have a proposal for you. I am sure that the small-minded scum in Washington will ignore my suggestion, but I am used to that. Pearls before Swine if you ask me.

If you want to help that region, forget about bombing Syria, ask yourself why is this region all fucked up (using the technical terms here, "fucked up"). What do the following countries have in common: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq? They were all created out of the former Ottoman Empire which is the country we now call Turkey. Turkey was also created at the end of WWI out of the former Ottoman Empire. This was all set up by the British and the French, mostly.

Since these countries clearly can not handle their affairs, I am referring to Syria, et alia, not England and France, and since this little British and French experiment in nation building is such a disaster, lets swallow our pride, and ask Turkey to come back, and manage the area for us. Forget about Syria, its just a province of the new Ottoman Empire, and better for it.

Bring back the Sublime Porte, the Grand Vizier, the Harem. All of it. I think that the world has given a good shot at letting the people of the region rule themselves, and they have proven to everyone how competent they are at it which is not very competent at all.

Lets admit our mistakes and bring back the Ottomans.

Furthermore, I predict that this will result in a massive increase in employment for certain technical people.  The Ottoman's were well known for the use of Unix, they had Unix everywhere, especially the Harem.

Perhaps the Harem is a problem for you, my sensitive, politically correct, white friend?  You might want to look into the role of women in the near east, first.  The Harem actually had quite a bit of power in the Ottoman empire.  More power than women have in politics in most of the contemporary Near East, I think.

Below we have a photograph of a classic Harem and concept art for a proposed anime-style modern Harem.

Also, the Ottoman's were quite stylish.  Check out the head gear, below.

Suleiman Himself

Map of the Ottoman Empire at its Largest

So in conclusion, by bringing back the Ottoman Empire to that part of the world, and getting rid of the current countries of Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, we have a plan that will reduce violence, increase employment, elevate the role of women in their society, and add to sartorial elegance.  All of these things are good things, good for us and good for the region.

I hope you will support the campaign to restore the Ottoman Empire with your representatives in Washington.

The Uses of Snowden: Perception of the Death Penalty in the World at Large

This is the second of three essays on how Ed Snowden has been very helpful in bringing matters to our attention outside of the area which he intended, e.g. surveillance.  In this part we discuss the issue of how the death penalty is perceived in the world, something brought up because of Snowden's applications for amnesty in which he mentioned his concerns about being tortured or executed should he return to the United States.

Ah, the death penalty. What could be more American? An eye for an eye! Hang the bastard. String em up. Hang em high! A necktie party. A rough frontier justice. "And may God have mercy on your soul.... you may proceed", said the preacher.

There are regional differences of course. My favorite is Texas' "Justifiable Homicide" laws. In Texas you can get away with murder if you can convince a jury that 'he needed killing'.  

"You remember Jack. He was always drunk. Never did a day's honest work in his life. When he ran over Sam's dog, I had enough and I shot the good-for-nothing sonofabitch until he was dead".

So all is well and good, after all cultural diversity works many ways. Some countries have spicier food, we have the death penalty. Each to his own, I say.

What could be more American than a good hangin'?

But the world is filled with a bunch of damn foreigners. Damn it, its true, I have seen them myself. And many of them look on in horror at our death penalty, seeing it as barbaric, as "cruel and unusual punishment" and drawing far too many conclusions from the trivial and irrelevant detail that it is only the poor people who get executed while the rich go free. Oh yes, and that there *may* be a correlation, some say, between race and wealth and therefore of who gets the axe and who does not. Of course this isn't true! P'shaw I say! Certainly not in Florida!

How do I know that much of the world does not share our appreciation of the death penalty? Well it is due to that savior of modern man, that icon of all that is moral and pretentious in America, everyone's favorite martyr and photographic opportunity, Ed Snowden.

Yes, you see, in order to apply for amnesty in various countries it is useful, perhaps even required, that you articulate the case that if you were returned to the country you were trying to flee from, that you would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. For example, you might be tortured or put to death. So Ed made that case and many countries responded well to the argument.

Because, you see, the fact is that this country is now famous for torturing people. Yes, we can thank the illegal Bush administration for that. But its not all Bush's fault, imho, because you see when Obama came in he refused to have members of the Bush administration tried for their crimes. Had he done so, then he would have made the clear statement that American's found torture to be unacceptable. But he didn't and instead made the point that people of one Presidential Administration can commit any crime against humanity and get off.

On top of that, famously there was one way to get shot in America, legally that is, and that was to commit what was called "treason" back in the day. But since one can easily use that word, and people do, they went to the trouble of defining it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy during time of war. And war is defined as being declared formally by Congress, none of this namby pamby "police action" or "humanitarian mission" stuff back then. Therefore, someone who may or may not be considered to have given "aid and comfort" during a time when Congress has not declared war could not be considered for treason. On paper, that is.

In fact, you can try anyone for anything and leave it up to the courts to decide.

Which is why, when Snowden got international sympathy for the fact that if he returned to the US he might be tried for treason and shot, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to say that they would not seek the death penalty.

They would not have done so had not the argument that we are a cruel and murderous country rang true in the eyes of people of the world. Two thirds of the countries of the world have outlawed the death penalty (which is different of course from whether or not their government kills people, oh by the way). The USA is the number 5th country in the world for executions, coming in after China, Iran, North Korea and Yemen. Now that is a list right there to give one pause and wonder just what is going on.

I was not aware of how we were seen in this area by many people of the world until it was Snowden who brought it to my attention.  Well, I knew a little about it I guess, but hadn't given the issue much thought.

Is there a possible way out of this dilemma?  A solution that lets us keep our death penalty, so important to so many Americans, yet avoids the onus that accompanies "stringing someone up"?

I believe that there is.   What if we amended the law so that only the rich would be at jeopardy to being sent to "Ol' Sparkey" (the electric chair) for their crimes?  Its only fair after all, they are the only ones who can afford the legal system in this country; a poor man or woman certainly can not.

I think that world opinion would respond to this change and recognize that we had significantly made progress on the issue of the death penalty and furthermore that we were taking a very progressive step on the issue of the very wealthy people in a world filled with unbelievable poverty.

I hope that all good Americans will join me in calling for the death penalty for the rich.

Thank you.
____________________________________

Notes

1, "Old Sparky" -- The Electric Chair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky

The Uses of Snowden: Passports are Given and Passports are Taken Away

[revised 8/27/2013]

One commonly held theory is that Snowden is useful for stimulating dialog and discussion in America on a variety of topics, and that this process of discussion is valuable independent of whether or not Snowden is actually the traitor that he wants to be or is merely guilty of narcissistic self-delusion.

For a quick review of Narcissistic Personality Disorder see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

But whether actual traitor or merely a self-proclaimed martyr, his public travel dysfunction has stirred up at least three notable topics, none of them particularly to do with national security or surveillance. The topics are

1. What is a Passport and when can it be revoked ?

2. How does the rest of the world see our death penalty and use of torture ?

3. What is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what does it mean?

We will take this one piece at a time. First, the Passport.

1. The Passport

When Snowden's passport was revoked, righteous indignation spewed from the usual sources accusing the US Government of doing something illegal or immoral. So what is a passport and do you have a right to one? A passport is three things, two of them formal and one of them implied.   It is first identity paperwork and second a request that courtesy be shown the holder of the passport when travelling in another country.    By convention and by treaty it has accrued a third meaning, which is the de facto right to travel internationally at all.  The passport has a long history but as we know it in its modern incarnation it came into existence during WWI in order to control the passage of people of various nationalities across borders in Europe.  This specific need for border control evolved into the right to travel internationally in general.  No passport or diplomatic papers of some sort meant no international travel, for the most part.

The most famous fictional "letter of transit" for Victor Laszlo travelling through Casablanca

As it is currently conceived of, a passport is issued by a country's foreign service, in this case our Department of State, at their discretion and it may be revoked at their discretion. In our country, failure to pay child support is cause to revoke someone's passport, even if that passport is required for them to make a living, or to exercise any of their other interests or rights to travel. It can be pulled without recourse to law and is so pulled every day of the week in this country. So why shouldn't they pull the passport of someone who claims to be violating American law and releasing classified information ?

Furthermore, not having a passport is not a barrier to travel if another country wishes you to visit them.  Those countries can issue one of several types of diplomatic documents (usually temporary) that will enable someone without a passport to travel to them. They do it all the time, when they want to. In the case of Snowden, I guess they didn't want to.  (Of course a little pressure on them by our Government might have been applied behind the scenes, do you suppose?)

If Americans wish to change the process by which a passport can be revoked and the rules involving who can have a passport and what their rights are, I am all for it. But that would be a major change and would probably require the cooperation of congress and the courts.

But maybe a better question is why a "government" is necessary to have a passport at all?   How many people who are alive today chose the government they live under?   Is it perhaps 1% of the people?   I certainly did not choose this oppressive government that protects the rich and humiliates the poor. Why should governments have such control over international travel at all beyond what they permit at their own borders?

Recall, a passport is identity and a request for courtesy, combined with an implied third meaning: which is the right to travel internationally.   Why not have another, presumably international, body, certify the identity of a person and negotiate by treaty (1) the right to travel?  Maybe the UN could do this and actually be good for something beyond getting their diplomats immunity from traffic tickets in NYC. 

In parts II and III we will go over how the world sees our death penalty and how that affects the Snowden matter and then review the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Snowden has accused the US of being in violation of. He is right, by the way, we are. They all are. All countries are.

Just wait until you read this thing.

______________________________________________

1. So far as I know treaties are made by sovereign countries and their descendants (e.g. when Soviet Russia picked up the treaties of Imperial Russia).   So is the UN allowed to make treaties of this type? What is funny about this question is that I do not have a clue what the answer is, but I suspect the answer is "its complicated".