Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul

Injured kittens, elections, and worse stuff

with 5 comments

On the way to work today the bus got mired in traffic. Then I saw emergency lights ahead, the police were routing traffic into one lane. Getting closer I saw why. There was an injured kitten in the road, a half grown little stripey guy. One of the cops was standing so as to keep him in the shade. For some reason the sight just about to broke my heart, I cried on and off all day. So much sadness in the world, this just put me over the edge I guess. I hope the little guy made it.

I’ll be glad when the election is over. It’s been one of the uglier elections in my memory, if not the ugliest. I still honestly don’t give a crap who wins, both candidates have aspects that are so so creepy it makes my flesh crawl. Both candidates are a tool of the bankers, militarists, and energy cartel. Obama’s social policy window dressing is a bit better, but living in a theocracy might actually make Americans snap out of their revery. More on point, I think if Superman got elected, we’d still be hosed. America is like a stately old oak tree … completely rotted out inside. It looks majestic, but one of these days there will be a stiff breeze and down it goes. It’s not going to be pretty.

Obama. Barrack “kill list” Obama. I find it more than disturbing that the POTUS maintains a kill list, a list that can and has included Americans. It’s disturbing in and of itself, but that no one is upset about it is just plain scary. Nixon had an enemy’s list, and was excoriated for it; Obama has a kill list, and no one cares? People went wild over non-existent “death panels,” but don’t care that Obama has set himself up as a death panel of one? I am not reassured.

Then we have the rapist’s right’s party. Think about this: We have a Senate candidate Mourdock claiming that a rape  pregnancy was a gift from God and couldn’t be aborted. He said he anguished over this question before coming to that conclusion. I’m a little unclear what he anguished over. He couldn’t have anguished over how he would feel if he were raped and impregnated, since that can’t happen to him. So he must have anguished over how he would feel if he raped and impregnated someone. And he concluded that whoever he, or any man, chooses to rape;  if the woman is impregnated, she must bear the child. The rapist gets to choose, the raped victim doesn’t. Right. Romney endorsed this guy. Ryan holds similar view. This is crazy, a perversion of Christianity, and an example of rape culture. Again, not reassured.

I like Jill Stein, but nothing short of a miracle will get her in the White House. It might make a good science fiction story, or an unlikely Hollywood movie. I think they put Ron Paul back in cryogenic suspension, I don’t know where he went. Probably conveyed to media purgatory. There’s other stuff on ballots. I’m cynical about it all. The special interests have it locked up, even when they lose, they have the lawyers and the money to fix it. Legalized corruption on a scale never before seen in history. See, the USA is still number one! On the other hand, unlike so many people, I’m not going to freak out no matter who gets elected. Whoever gets elected has my support, at least initially. Whoever wins has an unholy mess to contend with, and the last thing America needs now is sore losers. My studied neutrality may only last to the acceptance speech, tomorrow is another day.

Lastly, so as not to be accused of excess negatively, can I envision an encouraging outcome on election day? Yes. Yes I can. I hope the winning candidate sees an injured kitten in the road, and his heart is softened and his mind is cleared, and he gives an acceptance speech that resonates with all Americans, and opens a dialog that begins to heal this fractured land. See, I can still dream.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. Not being used for profit, it’s just such a lovely image, I couldn’t resist. I got it from this site. It’s destruction from Hurricane Sandy. The image says a lot to me. Who is this woman? Where is she going?)

Written by unitedcats

November 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Ron Paul in person

with 4 comments

Here it is, photographic proof that I saw the great man in person myself. Yes, my camera doesn’t have a telephoto lens. Is there an app for that? Did I spell app correctly? I’m a little behind on the technological curve sometimes. It runs in the family. When I was a kid in the early sixties my grandfather’s phone had to be cranked to make it work. How many people remember one of those still in use? I eventually as a young man-made the phone’s wooden case into a jewellery box for my sister, I think she has it still.

Dr. Paul’s speech was an interesting experience, I don’t think I’ve ever been to a political rally before. There were a few thousand people. Mostly pro Paul, with a few exceptions. It was outdoors, which was nice. I like the outdoors. My overall experience was one of gladness and sorrow. On the one hand, it was really nice to see a mainstream political candidate who was calling for actual change, not just new monograms on the White House towels. And for an end to the War on Drugs, and an end to endless military adventures overseas. Yes, even our troops in Japan and Germany should come home. No more “nation building,” scaling back the size of the US government, all things that need to be done. His positions on abortion, woman’s rights, and the welfare state … not so promising.

The sorrow. Well, there was this quixotic aspect to all of it. The people running the rally were all so upbeat and optimistic about Ron’s candidacy, when it was obvious that the crowd of a few thousand was draw from all over the greater Bay Area. The Grateful Dead drew larger crowds when they appeared at UC. And then there’s the unspoken fact that the media and the mainstream parties have largely marginalized “outsider” candidates like Ron Paul and successfully demonized him. Most Americans now are basically programmed to think that their party has all the right ideas, the other party is going to destroy America, and third parties are dangerous lunatics. Yes, actually making changes in how the government does things is now a dangerous heresy. Washington wept.

All said and done, I still think Rob Paul is the best of a bad lot by far. For one he’s the only politician who answers questions more or less directly, instead of launching into sound bites. Or lying through his perfect teeth. More importantly, he’s the only one calling for and end to World War Two. It’s time to bring the troops home. Nearly 75 years as globocop has made a small number of Americans very very very rich, and impoverished the rest of us. War profiteering is not a sustainable base for the economy of a great nation. And his stand on reducing government spending and ending the War on Drugs is also refreshing. Refreshing in the former case because I think he’s serious about it, refreshing in the later case because the war on Drugs has been a costly and counterproductive failure.

How about his stand on abortion, fetal rights, and the welfare state? Apalling, and sadly a reflective of his all too Christian world view. Abortion especially has been the scalpel that allowed the democrats to successfully demonize Mr Paul and make sure that no “progressive” voter looked any further, lest they too be demonized as some sort of woman hating monster by their progressive friends. That’s modern America for us, no debate, just to hell with any alternatives. I have recently noticed that the progressive left is about as fair and balanced in their outlook as Fox News viewers are in theirs. Does it show?

Am I for banning abortion, making fertilized eggs into human beings, or slashing social programs? No, of course not. So why do I support Ron Paul? It’s very simple. If we don’t end the warfare state, the Christian right is going to eat us alive, and we will lose all our rights anyhow. These people have a crusader mentality, and constant war is their bread and butter. It means they are the good guys, therefore whatever they do is right. And since they are steeped in ideology and a need to make everyone conform to Biblical norms of behaviour, it’s not going to be pretty. When the Christian right eventually overturns Roe vs Wade, and then outlaws abortion nationally … Ron Paul’s idea of leaving it up to the states to decide is going to look a lot better in retrospect.

Sigh, politics. Next maybe some uplifting posts about zombie puppies or some such.

(Photo copyright Doug Stych 2012, all rights reserved. I think that’s his wife and daughter sitting behind him. And I guess those are security people watching him and the crowd. I’m glad I went, for good or for ill it’s still a very free country in many ways. It’s been a  long strange path since Yorktown, and I think we are lost in Mirkwood, but who knows what is on the other side.)

Written by unitedcats

April 9, 2012 at 7:20 am

Posted in Elections, Politics

Tagged with ,

Ron Paul

with 3 comments

Thursday I have reserved a seat to go listen to Ron Paul speak. I’m pretty excited, I think the last time I saw a public figure in the flesh I was holding a sign saying “Go Back to Hanoi!” That probably says far more about my past than I should let on, but hey, it’s still a free country. Well, sort of. Moving right along, I’m thrilled, and not ashamed to say it. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians these days who actually says things that make sense. We have a president who utters the most egregious lies and nonsense with presidential sincerity that would make Satan proud, and a veritable clown parade of Republicans. Ron Paul at least is willing to stand up and say that the Emperor has no clothes, just for that I appreciate him. I will take pictures, and try to shake his hand if the opportunity arises.

Mr Paul is an interesting figure,  more than just the Howard Stassen of his time. Or, to be more accurate, it’s fascinating to see how people and the establishment react to him. Fascinating as in like watching a cockroach in a  microwave. Sigh. I like some of  what on Paul says. I have had people question my sanity for saying that. Literally. And this is from people who claim to be mainstream progressives. I’m used to troglodyte conservatives claiming that anyone who isn’t a conservative is either stupid or insane, but it sure seems like a recent development that mainstream people, people with college educations, would actually believe that people who disagreed with them are insane. Um, this is what the communists and Nazis believed. Just saying.

Secondly, the attacks on Ron Paul by the progressives are also scary and creepy. They cherry pick all sorts of stuff from his past, present it out of context, and then claim what a monster it makes Mr Paul out to be. Do they talk about his position on the issues? Noooooo, we apparently can’t discuss the issues any more in this country. It’s all about irrelevant peripheral  stuff. And progressive’s take it with deadly seriousness. I had a progressive claim recently that Ron Paul supporter’s “heads would explode” when it was realized that one of his campaign donors was a controversial figure. Um, as long as he isn’t getting money from Al Qaeda, who cares? More on point, do they not understand that every political candidate has taken money from people with agendas, so what? Frankly one would think it would be scarier to have politicians bankrolled by the bankers whose greed destroyed the economy in the first place, like say, the mainstream candidates. Nope, not an issue. Sigh.

It’s depressing really. When I was a young man most people didn’t take politics personally, today the two parties are so polarized that it’s hard to find anyone on either side who is willing to discuss the actual issues. Well aside from wedge social issues, but I digress. Now we have a system where both parties are in lock step conviction that the other party is going to destroy the country, oblivious to the fact that both parties are completely run for and by big business, big oil, big banking, and big military. And that for three decades these people have enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else, and used the increasingly sophisticated power of advertising (helped immensely by the fact that big business owns the big media) to mould their supporter into compliant sheep.

Well, compliant until someone tries to say “Um, the herd is heading for a cliff people, we need to change direction.” And then the scary sheep fangs come out. On the plus side, on a personal level, I have concluded that people who would hold my political views against me personally aren’t really my friends. My friends hold political views that are all over the spectrum, and I don’t take any of it personally. They are good people, we just disagree on some things, so what? I suspect that if a person’s entire spectrum of friends fits into the exact same ideological slot as them, they don’t really have any friends. A person and the ideas they have are two different things, a distinction that seems lost these days in the media and public discourse.

We have a two party system working in lock step to prevent any fundamental change in this country, change that is decades overdue; while simultaneously sidelining anyone who proposes real change.  Like Ron Paul. He’s the last politician standing who is willing to stand up and say that things like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are causing more harm than good. I certainly disagree with him on some issues, and don’t think he will get elected unless there is a “King Ralph” event, but God Bless him for being a voice of sanity in a world of lies.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law, the usual caveats apply. I chose this image because it just shows him as he is, he’s just an old guy, a human being like the rest of us. And sorry about all the sighs, it’s kind of my overall response to politics in America these days: Sigh.)

Written by unitedcats

April 3, 2012 at 7:03 am

Lies, Damn Lies, and Obama

with 7 comments

“Israel is right to be concerned about Iran’s push to join the league of nations that possess nuclear weapons, but diplomacy – not military intervention – remains the “preferred solution” to averting a potential arms race in the Middle East, President Barack Obama said Sunday”

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it makes me want to scream. Since that upsets my cats and annoys my neighbours, I’ll blog instead. It came from a recent interview he gave. And since are so many things, I am going to gloss over most of them. Suffice it to say that the “danger” posed by Iran is wildly exaggerated, a single Israeli nuclear armed submarine could destroy Iran. And that Iran has every right and reason to develop peaceful nuclear power like dozens of other nations. And we’ll skip the whole oil and petrodollars thing for now.

No, what really makes me admire the Obama’s ability to lie convincingly with disarming sincerity is this part: “diplomacy – not military intervention – remains the “preferred solution”” This isn’t just a  little lie, this is a whopper.  A giant steaming platter of pure horsecrap … and tens of millions of Americans will gobble it up and ask for more.

Let me explain. Diplomacy is talking to people. It’s setting up meetings and sitting down and talking. This is not what the USA is doing. The USA doesn’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran, we don’t even recognize the legitimacy of the government that has been ruling Iran since they overthrew the US installed Shah in 1979. OK, refusing to talk to someone for decades isn’t seeking a diplomatic solution. More on point, for some years now we have been giving Iran an ultimatum, stop their uranium enrichment or else, and ratcheting up the sanctions and threats. Telling someone to do what you say while you are punching them … is the opposite of seeking a diplomatic solution.

Yet many progressive will be heartened by Obama’s words, despite the fact that his actions towards Iran and the rest of the world haven’t been diplomatic at all. That is what the liberal left has sunk to in America, we have a president waging endless war and giving the bankers everything they want,  yet the occasional liberal blurb and all is well. Or at least, they rationalize that Obama’s better than the alternative. No, he’s more comfortable than the alternative, but the destination is the same.

Obama is literally herding his base with liberal sounding comments like this. In fact this has been a  classic in US government for decades, give someone an ultimatum, then claim publicly that you are seeking a diplomatic solution. Being able to say that in a presidential manner without gagging or giggling is a  requirement for holding the office of the presidency. And Obama passes with flying colours, the man can spout the most egregious lies and look and sound sincere and oh so presidential when he does. And of course when the designated victim agrees to the ultimatum, all the USA does is issue another one, but enough of that for now.

It’s weird, we have spent the last two decades morphing into a nation where our leaders only give lip service to the idea of representing the actual needs of the American people while simultaneously selling us out to the militarists, energy industry, and bankers … while the vast majority of Americans are convinced that somehow “their” candidate is the better alternative. And lest cognitive dissonance sets in, any candidate that tries to deviate from the path set by the powers that be is enthusiastically attacked as a deranged lunatic, or completely ignored. How any Americans have heard of Jill Stein?

What can I say, I have become increasingly cynical of late. None of the mainstream candidates does anything for me, many of them are little more than walking caricatures. Obama though is a smart man, and I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Lying through his teeth to keep up the pretense that him and the Democrats are the voice of peace and reason. They may be the voice, but actions are what counts. And now we have closed our embassy in Syria and broken off diplomatic relations with them. Yerp, more diplomacy afoot there as we openly talk about “helping” Syria by bombing them. Obama is leading down the exact same path of permanent  war and slavery and madness as the rest, he just sounds noble while he is doing it.

Sigh. I’ll try to hold it to one anti-Obama rant a month or less. Hey, at least I’m not calling him a socialist or a Muslim!

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright laws. It’s not being use for profit etc. I have no idea as to its origin. If so many Obama supporters can bombard me with abuse because I  dare say that Ron Paul has some good ideas (see three paragraphs back,) I think I can get away with suggesting that many democrats are just as much sheep as their Bible following counterparts. Yes, unlike the vast majority of political pundits who specialize in skewing the “other” side, I loathe “both” sides equally. This is why I have only four regular readers.)

Written by unitedcats

February 7, 2012 at 8:29 am

Ron Paul on Wikileaks: Lying is Not Patriotic

with 7 comments

I normally don’t publish guest articles, but this week I’m on a  roll. The Time Traveller post was just for fun, today’s post is deadly serious. I was writing my own post on Wikileaks, when I came across Congressman Ron Paul’s latest words on the subject. He covers the situation quite nicely, and since I am proud that at least one American politician hasn’t sold their soul to the bankers and militarists, I am reposting his speech here.

The one thing I would like to add is about the recent remarks by Clinton and other administration officials and their claim that Wikileaks is “putting American lives in danger.” The hypocrisy of that claim makes me want to puke, literally. Americans are being killed and maimed every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every drone strike in the Muslim world creates new terrorists who hate America, and it’s Wikileaks who is putting Americans in harm’s way? No, it’s our insanely aggressive foreign policy, our wars, our drone strikes, our meddling in the Middle East and Central Asia that are putting American lives at risk … Clinton and Obama are sending Americans to die pointless deaths in foreign lands, not Wikileaks.

Or to put my feelings in perspective, even though I loathed George Bush’s foreign policy, I would have taken an assassin’s bullet for him because I still respected the office of the presidency and what it stood for. Obama’s craven sellout to the bankers and militarists has utterly destroyed what little respect I had left for the office of the presidency, and I can’t say the same about an assassin’s bullet today.

That being said, the words of Congressman Ron Paul on Wikileaks:

Lying is Not Patriotic
by Rep. Ron Paul, December 10, 2010

WikiLeaks’ release of classified information has generated a lot of attention world-wide in the past few weeks.

The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news.

Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government.  Losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principle supporter and financier of al-Qaeda and this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government.

This emphasizes even more the fact that no al-Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did.

It has been charged, by self-proclaimed experts, that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information, that he did not steal?

And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn’t the Washington Post, New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers.  Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.

The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any National Security laws.

Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam War and argued for its prolongation were outraged.  But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies.  We were never threatened by Weapons of Mass Destruction or al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information.

Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of these unnecessary wars.  Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism.  Revealing the real nature and goal for our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

1.  Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?

2.  Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3.  Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4.  Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5.  Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6.  If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7.  Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8.  Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war — which is treason — and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9.  Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised:  “Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.”

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It’s not being used for profit, and frankly I hope no one would use a picture like this for profit. Credit and copyright: AP Photo/Steve Ruark. It’s the coffin of  Lance Cpl. Kevin M. Cornelius, killed in Afghanistan in August. I selected it because America’s war dead are still being relegated into the darkness by America’s so called free press.)

Written by unitedcats

December 10, 2010 at 9:12 am