Jose Padilla indicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Padilla’s Case was about to go to the Supreme Court to have his status as an enemy combatant reviewed. Without a doubt the individual who was held, without being charged for three years, was charged because of the upcoming Supreme Court Review.
This individual originally made headlines as a “dirty bomb” suspect (I believe in Chicago). Dirty bombs are a technological impossibility. So we had a U.S. Citizen being held without charges in a navy Brig for three years for allegedly attempting an impossible act. The question is whether letting this case go too the Supreme Court would have been a good thing. With our new justice: which way would it go?
I think the Stare Decisis of “Ex Parte Milligan” would have won out. We need Habeas Corpus and if wartime is the justification then rebuttal is already in Ex Parte Milligan that eternal question: “If wartime is the justification for erosion of our constitutional rights then what the fuck reason is the war being fought for?” Certainly it is not being fought to defend our freedoms. Hopefully the logic contained in such a conundrum as well as the precedent of Ex Part Milligan should lend weight to the advantage of maintaining our rights.
On the other hand the risk that the Supreme Court would fail to check the executive’s unbridled power and create a lasting precedent for the suspension of habeas corpus. This is such a terrible outcome I am at some level relieved that the decision didn’t get to the Supreme Court, to allow the possibility of such a catastrophic blow to our civil liberties. After Bush v. Gore and the decisions on not making public the documents and conversations at Cheney’s NEPDG. The Supreme Court has become co-opted by the executive and there is a chance they would agree with the “enemy combatant” status argument concerning a U.S. citizen allegedly attempting a technologically impossible act. Here is my burning question:
“Does it have to get worse before it gets better?”
Is it:
1.Better to have the Supreme Court unmasked and decried for allowing the executive to become tyrannical; thus making it apparent to everyone that the checks and balances in stalled by our founders have collapsed.
OR
2.The executive be scared of judicial review thus providing marginal protection from the police state (One won’t be held for MORE than 3 years without being charged).
And of course there is a third possible eventuality which is far worse:
3. The Supreme Court agrees that suspension of Habeas Corpus is constitutional. They should make the corruption of the court obvious and the tyranny of the executive apparent, but most people just don’t care.
There is a strong possibility people will just ignore it.
Using terrorism to justify such a worldview and patriotism to justify apathy individuals will compartmentalize away the existence of the fascist police state that will have started ruling over us when Habeas Corpus is suspended.
Our state may have become tyrannical at the point it suspends Habeas Corpus and reverses Ex Parte Milligan.
Will such a debate emerge at the point this happens? Or will a PR blitz and the “mainstream media” help everyone forget the constitutional rights they had?
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Friday, July 22, 2005
At one point in American History there was a 4th Amendment
"New York Times" 07-21-05
Excerpt:
New York City will begin tomorrow morning randomly checking bags at subway stations, commuter railways and on buses, officials announced today in the wake of the terrorist bombings in London.
“We will be instituting random searches of bags and packages as people enter the transit system,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.
Excerpt:
New York City will begin tomorrow morning randomly checking bags at subway stations, commuter railways and on buses, officials announced today in the wake of the terrorist bombings in London.
“We will be instituting random searches of bags and packages as people enter the transit system,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
America, Imagine if you will...
A 90% election turnout...Bullshit its not possible.
1.People who cannot vote for the two parties always votes for a third party, and thus realizes their vote is pointless and usually doesn't vote at all.
2.People who vote for the two parties know whether they're in a swing state, so don't give a shit if the polls show a win.
3.Other people who vote for the two parties are just lazy and literally just don't do it even though they're fully conscious of the LEADERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH changing hands that day.
4.People who don't vote for any party, think that their vote doesn't count and its always going to stay the same, rich get richer and poor get slavery/prison; and/or politicians are only in it for self-interest/money and power.
One-by-one
1. Unless people vote for third parties the republidemocraticans are never going to do anything but smear eachother.
2.Getting rid of the electoral college would allow everyone's vote to count and would make every individual vote equal to every other individual vote.
3.Wake up! What?! You don't think politics is that important? **Holocaust** You don't think politics is important? **Hiroshima,Nagasaki** Maybe you're right? **Gulags** You know I'm startin' to come around to your point of view. **Vietnam** I mean seriously who needs politics? **Apartheid** You know I can just concern myself with draft picks and new beer commercials.**Slavery** I mean its not like politics changes anything. **indigenous Americans** Its not like paying attention could change anything.**Iran-Contra** Yep, fuck politics, that could never happen here anyway.**ABU GHRAIB GAUNTANIMO DASHT-I-LEILI GENEVA CONVENTIONS** yah fuck politics.
4.It will stay the same...unless we all start voting to hold these assholes accountable.How many senators voted for the patriot act? How many for the Iraq war? How many voted to give bush jr. emergency powers to declare war on anyone he saw fit to defend us in the so-called "war on terrorism"? Why are they still in office? These asshole politicians not only think we're too dumb to understand that war is just war because its fought by states and terrorism is terrorism, because its fought by small groups of peoples; when they're the exact same thing. Ok fine you have watched too much fox news, you actually think that our laser guided bombs with cameras riding on them blowing up "a target" as well as innocent men, women, and children where they live, WHERE THEY LIVE! IS NOT FUCKING TERROR, THEN FUCK YOU! War is terrorism, "targets" and "collateral damage" get hit........I'm waiting for your train of thought.....That's right I know what you're thinking just keep going......Bam! You got it "Fuck you jimothy terrorists SEEK civilians for newspaper headlines".....*ahem* Every one of those laser guided bombs the brand new MOAB every time they're detonated it is far more likely than not, that a human not on the "targets" list has died. I mean doesn't that make you feel like a coward, these people(albeit brainwashed by religious wackos) are willing to throw their own life away at any point to kill a few of their "enemies", whereas we have laser guided bombs, or troops armed with every technology possible, killing our "enemies".
Go ask someone from Nicaragua about how the US doesn't seek out civilians in conflicts it is involved in(they just don't do it for headlines), or how about El Salvador, you know, nobody from Chile would know anything about US seeking out civilians...Somebody please post a comment where you define what these two words mean: "Terrorist" and "Terrorism", none of our definitions will ever hold water, you will continue add on to the definition(I forgot the guy who said it when referring to philosophy "When a contradiction arises, create a distinction.").
Well this is why I started this rant: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7876196/
These people actually had a 90% election turnout. This one is not sarcastic: Ain't democracy grand?
1.People who cannot vote for the two parties always votes for a third party, and thus realizes their vote is pointless and usually doesn't vote at all.
2.People who vote for the two parties know whether they're in a swing state, so don't give a shit if the polls show a win.
3.Other people who vote for the two parties are just lazy and literally just don't do it even though they're fully conscious of the LEADERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH changing hands that day.
4.People who don't vote for any party, think that their vote doesn't count and its always going to stay the same, rich get richer and poor get slavery/prison; and/or politicians are only in it for self-interest/money and power.
One-by-one
1. Unless people vote for third parties the republidemocraticans are never going to do anything but smear eachother.
2.Getting rid of the electoral college would allow everyone's vote to count and would make every individual vote equal to every other individual vote.
3.Wake up! What?! You don't think politics is that important? **Holocaust** You don't think politics is important? **Hiroshima,Nagasaki** Maybe you're right? **Gulags** You know I'm startin' to come around to your point of view. **Vietnam** I mean seriously who needs politics? **Apartheid** You know I can just concern myself with draft picks and new beer commercials.**Slavery** I mean its not like politics changes anything. **indigenous Americans** Its not like paying attention could change anything.**Iran-Contra** Yep, fuck politics, that could never happen here anyway.**ABU GHRAIB GAUNTANIMO DASHT-I-LEILI GENEVA CONVENTIONS** yah fuck politics.
4.It will stay the same...unless we all start voting to hold these assholes accountable.How many senators voted for the patriot act? How many for the Iraq war? How many voted to give bush jr. emergency powers to declare war on anyone he saw fit to defend us in the so-called "war on terrorism"? Why are they still in office? These asshole politicians not only think we're too dumb to understand that war is just war because its fought by states and terrorism is terrorism, because its fought by small groups of peoples; when they're the exact same thing. Ok fine you have watched too much fox news, you actually think that our laser guided bombs with cameras riding on them blowing up "a target" as well as innocent men, women, and children where they live, WHERE THEY LIVE! IS NOT FUCKING TERROR, THEN FUCK YOU! War is terrorism, "targets" and "collateral damage" get hit........I'm waiting for your train of thought.....That's right I know what you're thinking just keep going......Bam! You got it "Fuck you jimothy terrorists SEEK civilians for newspaper headlines".....*ahem* Every one of those laser guided bombs the brand new MOAB every time they're detonated it is far more likely than not, that a human not on the "targets" list has died. I mean doesn't that make you feel like a coward, these people(albeit brainwashed by religious wackos) are willing to throw their own life away at any point to kill a few of their "enemies", whereas we have laser guided bombs, or troops armed with every technology possible, killing our "enemies".
Go ask someone from Nicaragua about how the US doesn't seek out civilians in conflicts it is involved in(they just don't do it for headlines), or how about El Salvador, you know, nobody from Chile would know anything about US seeking out civilians...Somebody please post a comment where you define what these two words mean: "Terrorist" and "Terrorism", none of our definitions will ever hold water, you will continue add on to the definition(I forgot the guy who said it when referring to philosophy "When a contradiction arises, create a distinction.").
Well this is why I started this rant: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7876196/
These people actually had a 90% election turnout. This one is not sarcastic: Ain't democracy grand?
Friday, March 11, 2005
Common Sense
The front page of todays NYtimes reads: "Pentagon aims to shift inmates from military base".
I wrote about this situation coming up earlier; as I'm sure many also expected this outcome. The reason inmates were put on the Gitmo base in the first place was that the executive branch of the United States federal government wanted to imprison "Terror suspects"(translation: Muslims) OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of the US federal court system.
The Supreme court did not fall for it and actually decided something right, despite Scalia and Rehnquist still being on the bench. They said that these individual had to get a trial or be released. The conservative media went crazy talking about how this would release terrorists in to the wild and bedlam would pervade. The truth of the matter is if they don't have enough evidence to go to trial on, then the person is most likely not a terrorist. Just like you and I(The average US citizen) we cannot just BE imprisoned, there must be evidence presented at a trial and heard by an objective(in a perfect world haha) judge and jury. That is the standard I feel comfortable with, and NO these individuals are not US citizens, so by law they didn't have the same rights. After that supreme court case though, the precedent has been set, if we take control of a bunch of people that are not POWs(or the bullshit legal fiction they tried to create "enemy combatants") they need a trial. The constitution says PEOPLE not CITIZENS.
But that's in the past what I had surmised is that the executive branch would drag their feet on the Gitmo detainees. It turns out they found an even better solution. This way they will be 100% sure that the federal court system will not ensure that these HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS. They are exporting them to Saudi Arabia and other countries, where they will undoubtedly be tortured. Not only that but the CIA will probably still have access to them so that the US can keep torturing(its hard to quit cold turkey).
The thing that pisses me off is the fact that they are getting away with it. They first put them in Cuba because they thought that the courts couldn't reach them, but federal sovereignty by pure COMMON SENSE(and stare decises) extends to military bases, territories, provinces, native reservations, and embassies. So after the exec is shut down by the supreme court here is the plan:
1. Wait for the PR to cool down, it only takes about a month or two for people to forget whatever was the hot media topic(prisoner torture, tsunami, bush's draft dodging, etc).
2. Slowly at first start moving prisoners to other countries that have close operational relationships with our military and intelligence apparatuses.
3. The mass exodus, move everyone that would get released for lack of evidence to these other countries(like Saudi Arabia). Because of number 2 it will look like the precedent has already been set and because of number 1 your average American will not make the connection between this movement and the court decision.
4. Keep the people you have evidence on in Gitmo give them trials and in foreign countries continue to torture other individuals that are most likely peaceful civilians(because if they weren't the evidence would be there to go to trial on).
So years from now if they start sending American citizens to Saudi Arabia for interrogation by US corporations specializing in torture(like Titan Corp. In Abu Ghraib), we will know how the precedent got set.
What to do now? I don't know
Dissent is now treason and individuals who exercise their right to peaceably assemble are quickly gassed and jailed.
So I end with one of my favorite quotes that I have put up in this blog before, but it still never gets old.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, only make violent revolution inevitable" -JFK
-Jimothy J. Jones-
I wrote about this situation coming up earlier; as I'm sure many also expected this outcome. The reason inmates were put on the Gitmo base in the first place was that the executive branch of the United States federal government wanted to imprison "Terror suspects"(translation: Muslims) OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of the US federal court system.
The Supreme court did not fall for it and actually decided something right, despite Scalia and Rehnquist still being on the bench. They said that these individual had to get a trial or be released. The conservative media went crazy talking about how this would release terrorists in to the wild and bedlam would pervade. The truth of the matter is if they don't have enough evidence to go to trial on, then the person is most likely not a terrorist. Just like you and I(The average US citizen) we cannot just BE imprisoned, there must be evidence presented at a trial and heard by an objective(in a perfect world haha) judge and jury. That is the standard I feel comfortable with, and NO these individuals are not US citizens, so by law they didn't have the same rights. After that supreme court case though, the precedent has been set, if we take control of a bunch of people that are not POWs(or the bullshit legal fiction they tried to create "enemy combatants") they need a trial. The constitution says PEOPLE not CITIZENS.
But that's in the past what I had surmised is that the executive branch would drag their feet on the Gitmo detainees. It turns out they found an even better solution. This way they will be 100% sure that the federal court system will not ensure that these HUMANS have HUMAN RIGHTS. They are exporting them to Saudi Arabia and other countries, where they will undoubtedly be tortured. Not only that but the CIA will probably still have access to them so that the US can keep torturing(its hard to quit cold turkey).
The thing that pisses me off is the fact that they are getting away with it. They first put them in Cuba because they thought that the courts couldn't reach them, but federal sovereignty by pure COMMON SENSE(and stare decises) extends to military bases, territories, provinces, native reservations, and embassies. So after the exec is shut down by the supreme court here is the plan:
1. Wait for the PR to cool down, it only takes about a month or two for people to forget whatever was the hot media topic(prisoner torture, tsunami, bush's draft dodging, etc).
2. Slowly at first start moving prisoners to other countries that have close operational relationships with our military and intelligence apparatuses.
3. The mass exodus, move everyone that would get released for lack of evidence to these other countries(like Saudi Arabia). Because of number 2 it will look like the precedent has already been set and because of number 1 your average American will not make the connection between this movement and the court decision.
4. Keep the people you have evidence on in Gitmo give them trials and in foreign countries continue to torture other individuals that are most likely peaceful civilians(because if they weren't the evidence would be there to go to trial on).
So years from now if they start sending American citizens to Saudi Arabia for interrogation by US corporations specializing in torture(like Titan Corp. In Abu Ghraib), we will know how the precedent got set.
What to do now? I don't know
Dissent is now treason and individuals who exercise their right to peaceably assemble are quickly gassed and jailed.
So I end with one of my favorite quotes that I have put up in this blog before, but it still never gets old.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, only make violent revolution inevitable" -JFK
-Jimothy J. Jones-
Sunday, January 23, 2005
That Cog Dee
Ok so this shoulda been posted awhile ago, but its pretty funny. I just keep thinking about it and the people that i've told always suggest I tell someone else.
Both stories are related, the first one kinda lets you enter the mind of a christian-conservative/neo-conservative/facist, the second sums up the across the board assumption of all people who support war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ok so I live near Chicago and a week or two before nov. 2 I was riding the train in to school. This elderly lady with a slight east european accent(not sure what nation) walks up to me with an air of haste around her. Turns out she is a political activist and very passionate about what she is doing, probably organizing with her church.
The woman says to me "Here I have to give you this[flyer]. We have to get young people to vote for Alan Keyes and George W. Bush."
"I can't do that" came my response.
"Oh don't say tha-" she said
"-Does that say 'pro-life for George W. bush' on that flyer?" I asked taking notice of the heading.
"Yes, pro life" she replied
"Were you aware that George Bush while Governor of Texas executed more people than any governor in history and he didn't even finish his 2nd term?" I inquired
"That is not true" came the reply.
I was dumbfounded, I thought for a few seconds "how could I prove this" I realized that I could lecture her or tell her to read. Neither of which would likely help her opinion exist outside a vacuum. So I chalked it up to another individual who let faith overwhelm reason, and if a person is not reasonable, you cannot debate them.
"Well there is little I can do if you don't accept facts" I said over my shoulder as i started walking down the steps towards the train platform, as it could be heard on its' approach.
I have also been trying to drop some knowledge on the facists over at collegeconservative.com, after I heard they got hacked I went to check it out. The host put up an open letter bitching about socialism. The first thing I saw when I got to the website is an article talking about how Abu Ghraib isn't that bad and the "liberal" media blew it out of proportion. The article espouses an ideology that liberals would want to give the prisoners a room at a posh hotel(as if that is the only alternative to violating the geneva conventions).
When the debate has an attempt by a conservative to mix the colors and make it a wash(which is always the case, like the guy who responded to my post on college conservative with an ad-hom insulting this site you are currently reading for grammar or something[like i'm an english teacher or give a shit, my speech.writing is real]). The easy way is to not bombard them with all the contradictions, but stick to the central meme that has ample evidence and an aversion to conservative's moral equivocation.
So I posted it up: United States Soldiers Sodomized Children on videotape.
The answers were what i told you: an ad-hom about my site, a general bitch about socialist theory guy, and one person who quoted another's post "If torturing an Iraqi will save a GI"s life then black is positive red is negative".
Then I realized this is not an argument, this does not even apply to my abu ghraib meme. This is a general value judgment that conservatives would rather see an Iraqi die then an American(I'd like to see if we could make their head explode by changing the options to: a young black GI and a white christian Iraqi LOL).
I realized that I didn't want to see either of them die or get tortured. One thing I do know though is based on what tiny information I have: the CIA is the Michael Jordan of torture. Death would be preferable to all who will have to go through the CIA's codified torture methods.
My assumption is that GI's are given orders by those in power. GI's choose to be GI's because most of them have very little other choice(college money or second chance at life or whatever). They are killed as much by Iraqis as the Americans who send them to die.
This is the fundamental divide between a facist and republican-democrat. They see war and they ask "why did 1000 people die?" they're response is that Iraqis are animals that killed them and hate us because of 911.
My belief is that it is because they were sent there by chicken-hawks, then the chicken-hawks are responsible for their death.
the entire meme can be summed up very easily: Collective Punishment.
neo-conservatives/facists believe in collective punishment. They actually believe(this is important, because history books won't say this), they actually believe that Islam blew up the world trade center. They believe that Muslims were responsible so all Muslims should be punished. If you remember the rise of the third reich there was a strong belief in collective punishment for the jew the power to really start enforcing such beliefs from the top-down provided itself after the burning of the reichstag.
I do not believe in collective punishment. I tend to ascribe to a Benthamesque vision of justice and punishment. I think only INDIVIDUALS who are responsible for crimes should be punished.
-Jimothy J. Jones
p.s. Can anyone tell me why i'm sorrounded by so many people that are pro-torture? Do they just have no empathy? or are they androids like a Philip K. Dick novel?
Both stories are related, the first one kinda lets you enter the mind of a christian-conservative/neo-conservative/facist, the second sums up the across the board assumption of all people who support war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ok so I live near Chicago and a week or two before nov. 2 I was riding the train in to school. This elderly lady with a slight east european accent(not sure what nation) walks up to me with an air of haste around her. Turns out she is a political activist and very passionate about what she is doing, probably organizing with her church.
The woman says to me "Here I have to give you this[flyer]. We have to get young people to vote for Alan Keyes and George W. Bush."
"I can't do that" came my response.
"Oh don't say tha-" she said
"-Does that say 'pro-life for George W. bush' on that flyer?" I asked taking notice of the heading.
"Yes, pro life" she replied
"Were you aware that George Bush while Governor of Texas executed more people than any governor in history and he didn't even finish his 2nd term?" I inquired
"That is not true" came the reply.
I was dumbfounded, I thought for a few seconds "how could I prove this" I realized that I could lecture her or tell her to read. Neither of which would likely help her opinion exist outside a vacuum. So I chalked it up to another individual who let faith overwhelm reason, and if a person is not reasonable, you cannot debate them.
"Well there is little I can do if you don't accept facts" I said over my shoulder as i started walking down the steps towards the train platform, as it could be heard on its' approach.
I have also been trying to drop some knowledge on the facists over at collegeconservative.com, after I heard they got hacked I went to check it out. The host put up an open letter bitching about socialism. The first thing I saw when I got to the website is an article talking about how Abu Ghraib isn't that bad and the "liberal" media blew it out of proportion. The article espouses an ideology that liberals would want to give the prisoners a room at a posh hotel(as if that is the only alternative to violating the geneva conventions).
When the debate has an attempt by a conservative to mix the colors and make it a wash(which is always the case, like the guy who responded to my post on college conservative with an ad-hom insulting this site you are currently reading for grammar or something[like i'm an english teacher or give a shit, my speech.writing is real]). The easy way is to not bombard them with all the contradictions, but stick to the central meme that has ample evidence and an aversion to conservative's moral equivocation.
So I posted it up: United States Soldiers Sodomized Children on videotape.
The answers were what i told you: an ad-hom about my site, a general bitch about socialist theory guy, and one person who quoted another's post "If torturing an Iraqi will save a GI"s life then black is positive red is negative".
Then I realized this is not an argument, this does not even apply to my abu ghraib meme. This is a general value judgment that conservatives would rather see an Iraqi die then an American(I'd like to see if we could make their head explode by changing the options to: a young black GI and a white christian Iraqi LOL).
I realized that I didn't want to see either of them die or get tortured. One thing I do know though is based on what tiny information I have: the CIA is the Michael Jordan of torture. Death would be preferable to all who will have to go through the CIA's codified torture methods.
My assumption is that GI's are given orders by those in power. GI's choose to be GI's because most of them have very little other choice(college money or second chance at life or whatever). They are killed as much by Iraqis as the Americans who send them to die.
This is the fundamental divide between a facist and republican-democrat. They see war and they ask "why did 1000 people die?" they're response is that Iraqis are animals that killed them and hate us because of 911.
My belief is that it is because they were sent there by chicken-hawks, then the chicken-hawks are responsible for their death.
the entire meme can be summed up very easily: Collective Punishment.
neo-conservatives/facists believe in collective punishment. They actually believe(this is important, because history books won't say this), they actually believe that Islam blew up the world trade center. They believe that Muslims were responsible so all Muslims should be punished. If you remember the rise of the third reich there was a strong belief in collective punishment for the jew the power to really start enforcing such beliefs from the top-down provided itself after the burning of the reichstag.
I do not believe in collective punishment. I tend to ascribe to a Benthamesque vision of justice and punishment. I think only INDIVIDUALS who are responsible for crimes should be punished.
-Jimothy J. Jones
p.s. Can anyone tell me why i'm sorrounded by so many people that are pro-torture? Do they just have no empathy? or are they androids like a Philip K. Dick novel?
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Gay Marriage
I just wanna give my quick take on this whole gay marriage...thing. First of all this is a created issue what the Karl Roves of the world call a "wedge issue". So many focus groups are conducted and the human mind's free will is broken down in to a probability matrix. Filter the probability matrix through demographics and you have a model for how voters(automaton voters) will come out.
People are homophobic and Americans especially are homophobic. My whole take on "gay" anything is who gives a fuck? So this guy likes doin other guys in the butt? why the hell should I care? Do you think he stays up late thinking about how I like doin' girls? NO, because who cares. Once there was slavery in the united states, then there was jim crow, and then there was a racist justice system. Progress is slow, but progress is pretty easy to see if you know some basic history. Gays are just another group that define themselves or are defined by our culture as outside "normalcy". Women were once this way; considered chattel, indigenous Americans also, Africans, Asian, Hispanic, Irish, etc. Whatever, groups are oppressed by society. So when a question arises that has to do with "gay" anything its just so strange, because the only basis for any of these ideas are from religion.
Just as Africans were once looked at as less than human, many regard gays as such, as generations grow up and question the values of their ancestors we will see racism, sexism, and homophobia taper off(it will never disappear). But that was a general rant so here is the matter at hand:
Gay marriages summed up real short I feel the same way as John Stewart: "let me get this straight, if they pass this law I will be forced to marry a gay guy!?...Because if not I don't see what the big deal is."
The question of gay marriage should have never existed and in fact it DOES NOT EXIST in political terms. The only question that should be addressed is: "Does a same-sex couple deserve the same tax rights as a heterosexual couple?".
Fuck marriage, marriage is a religious institution, a relic from a time before birth control and before women were even human. Churchs and synagogues should be addressing whether gays can marry and I don't give a shit how they come out.
What I believe is Gays should be given the same tax rights as any other human being who decides to enter in to a lifelong relationship with another. Call it civil unions call it beef jerky for all I care, just give them the same rights every other HUMAN BEING has!
Its like this call went out to all the xenophobic priests in the country and they all decided now is time for the "final solution". What truly scares me is the intense dehumanization of gays that made this 2004 election possibly may have repercussions in the future as the youth have been conditioned with a Hitleresque view of homosexuality.
Now is the time you should go to another page if you are offended by derogatory words and I can release some anxiety.
Jerry Falwell you are a fag, rick santorum you fuck animals, and oh man dick cheney if you weren't so close to death I'd say you were satan himself. You have a gay daughter but you want to PUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STOPPING GAYS FROM HAVING THE SAME TAX RIGHTS AS OTHER HUMANS. You dehumanize your own fucking daughter YOUR OWN DAUGHTER!!!! That is why I have to believe that these neo-cons don't even believe in this shit! They foment anger and prejudice to further entrench their own power I just see third reich everywhere which is my final point.
One of the common traits of facist regimes is oppression of unpopular minority populations. Did clinton or bush sr or reagan give half a shit if gays wanted to spend their life together? Homophobia gets votes, and that is one of the many reasons why I am not proud to be an American, because our government IS a facist regime. I am proud to be an American for many other reasons, but shit like this when Karl Rove creates a "wedge issue" and the media falls in lockstep mimicking Fox News, I get sad that people really are that stupid and ignorant. Believing this makes me arrogant though, so i'm still just trying to find that middle ground between clock tower and monk with gasoline, a blog should suffice :) .
-Jimothy J. Jones
"tryinna find a balance I gotta find my balance"
-Atmosphere
People are homophobic and Americans especially are homophobic. My whole take on "gay" anything is who gives a fuck? So this guy likes doin other guys in the butt? why the hell should I care? Do you think he stays up late thinking about how I like doin' girls? NO, because who cares. Once there was slavery in the united states, then there was jim crow, and then there was a racist justice system. Progress is slow, but progress is pretty easy to see if you know some basic history. Gays are just another group that define themselves or are defined by our culture as outside "normalcy". Women were once this way; considered chattel, indigenous Americans also, Africans, Asian, Hispanic, Irish, etc. Whatever, groups are oppressed by society. So when a question arises that has to do with "gay" anything its just so strange, because the only basis for any of these ideas are from religion.
Just as Africans were once looked at as less than human, many regard gays as such, as generations grow up and question the values of their ancestors we will see racism, sexism, and homophobia taper off(it will never disappear). But that was a general rant so here is the matter at hand:
Gay marriages summed up real short I feel the same way as John Stewart: "let me get this straight, if they pass this law I will be forced to marry a gay guy!?...Because if not I don't see what the big deal is."
The question of gay marriage should have never existed and in fact it DOES NOT EXIST in political terms. The only question that should be addressed is: "Does a same-sex couple deserve the same tax rights as a heterosexual couple?".
Fuck marriage, marriage is a religious institution, a relic from a time before birth control and before women were even human. Churchs and synagogues should be addressing whether gays can marry and I don't give a shit how they come out.
What I believe is Gays should be given the same tax rights as any other human being who decides to enter in to a lifelong relationship with another. Call it civil unions call it beef jerky for all I care, just give them the same rights every other HUMAN BEING has!
Its like this call went out to all the xenophobic priests in the country and they all decided now is time for the "final solution". What truly scares me is the intense dehumanization of gays that made this 2004 election possibly may have repercussions in the future as the youth have been conditioned with a Hitleresque view of homosexuality.
Now is the time you should go to another page if you are offended by derogatory words and I can release some anxiety.
Jerry Falwell you are a fag, rick santorum you fuck animals, and oh man dick cheney if you weren't so close to death I'd say you were satan himself. You have a gay daughter but you want to PUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STOPPING GAYS FROM HAVING THE SAME TAX RIGHTS AS OTHER HUMANS. You dehumanize your own fucking daughter YOUR OWN DAUGHTER!!!! That is why I have to believe that these neo-cons don't even believe in this shit! They foment anger and prejudice to further entrench their own power I just see third reich everywhere which is my final point.
One of the common traits of facist regimes is oppression of unpopular minority populations. Did clinton or bush sr or reagan give half a shit if gays wanted to spend their life together? Homophobia gets votes, and that is one of the many reasons why I am not proud to be an American, because our government IS a facist regime. I am proud to be an American for many other reasons, but shit like this when Karl Rove creates a "wedge issue" and the media falls in lockstep mimicking Fox News, I get sad that people really are that stupid and ignorant. Believing this makes me arrogant though, so i'm still just trying to find that middle ground between clock tower and monk with gasoline, a blog should suffice :) .
-Jimothy J. Jones
"tryinna find a balance I gotta find my balance"
-Atmosphere
Friday, August 20, 2004
The US exacerbates underdevelopment for their own self-interest (International Political Economy or how globalization will fuck 85% of the world)
85% of the world lives below the poverty line.
The economic gap between rich and poor is growing.
The US's largest employer "Wal-Mart", owned by the Walton Family one of the richest families in the US, does not let employees organize and thus does not pay them for overtime, gouges the living wage people need, and allows many terminations without just cause.
The WTO and IMF continue their rampage through developing countries. Every developing country in history has used nationalization of industry and protectionism of infant industry to foster growth. This is sometimes called "Import Substitution Industrialization". This model of International Political economy does not have good long term benefits, it will end up creating industry that is not competitive internationally, but it can help build infrastructure in a less developed country. What the WTO or IMF do is offer billions (or trillions if you remember the IMF's loan to Russia back in the day that Trillions of dollars just well........disappeard!!! AND WAS FOUND LATER BEING LAUNDERED THROUGH THE BANK OF NEW YORK!!!!) to a nation's "leaders", these elites that run these countries that have much wider economic gaps than developed countries, and convince the middle class it is in their benefit to borrow large sums of money. So there is a ton of money all of a sudden in the government and it follows with massive foreign direct investment from as Friedman calls them "The electronic herd". This is good right? Won't this will help nations that are largely un-industrialized and not prepared to be competitive in the world market?
The problem is these underdeveloped countries CANNOT compete with the world market so they sink when "free trade" is instituted. OK lets concede for a few paragraphs that what the WTO and IMF push on people is truly free trade and lets discuss the effects.
A country that does not have competitive goods will fail in a free market economy, if a country is young with infant industry then they have no chance competing with the North Atlantic countries.
So how do they sell their products?
There is a term that is used that can refer to federalism or a monopolized free market: a race to the bottom. The argument here is that if the United States(worlds largest consumer[the customer you want to have really really badly]) asks for some bauxite or copper or rubber now lets say there are 5 developing countries that sell these three different raw materials. Country A offers Bauxite for (I apologize for making numbers up but I do not know current market value of these materials) lets say 20 dollars a unit. The US then goes to country B and says "We got country A over here offerin' us 20 dollars a unit." So country B says 19 dollars per unit. By the time we get to country E its 16 dollars a unit, so the US goes back to Country A tells them who Country E offers at 16 and they offer at 15. This is because all developing countries desperately want the US for instance to buy their materials, because we are such a massive consumer of said materials. So to lose the US as a partner would be catastrophic for your country(even worse than selling your raw materials for half of what they are worth).
So we are left with underdeveloped countries, which are underdeveloped, because of the "race to the bottom" North Atlantic countries create to benefit themselves. So the monopoly here is in the hands of the consumer between the US, Britain, Germany, France, and maybe a few smaller world powers like Brazil, Japan, and China.
WAIT THATS NOT A MONOPOLY YOU JUST LISTED MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!
Remember the WTO? thats the organization these countries created a large forum in which all the countries of the organization automatically give new nations "Most Favored Nation" trading status(a status that means you are entitled to the minimum amount of protectionism as defined by whatever nation you trade with which has the least trade barriers).
So we cannot really call a monopoly of consumers that intend to create a race to the bottom as free trade. Its like we had a huge head start and now we force all developing nations instead of adoping the ISI model from above, and instead adopt the Export Led Industrialization(ELI) strategy. The ELI's biggest downfall is the race to the bottom which I explained above. So the United States of America through the WTO is essentially forcing countries to become based on a "cash crop" type system, to avoid a race to the bottom a country must find their own "niche" and only produce that one product or material. This way we end up forcing countries to mine all their own raw materials and natural resources AND GIVE IT TO US FOR LESS THAN MARKET VALUE!!!! Soon these underdeveloped countries will run out of raw resources and they will have no infrastructure of industry or agriculture to fall back on. These countries will only put a drag on the world economy hurting our children in the future.
Whats the alternative you say?
An international trade agreement based on human rights. Countries like Saudi Arabia that behead individuals in public squares will have trade barriers placed upon them. Countries like China that have had above ground nuclear tests after the test ban treaty will be punished through tariffs. We can also discourage foreign direct investment(FDI) through governmental taxes on certain regimes: If you wanna invest in Pinochet it will cost you more, if you want to invest in Milosevic you have to pay a higher tax, or if you want to support Saudi royals it will cost you extra. This would not be hard, in fact it would be much easier than it is now, but we as Americans would have to be prepared to pay a few extra pennies for our consumption, because the price of raw materials will return to its real market price after the consumer monopoly is deconstructed.
1. Countries that engage in Genocidal actions will have trade barriers making it more expensive for them to sell to the US and making it more expensive for people within our country to buy these products. .
2. Countries that engage in pre-emptive warfare(This is in a world where the US has not lost its mind because of the murders on 9/11, I see this kind of world in my generations future) will face protectionist barriers.
3. Countries that participate in the proliferation of WMD, any testing of WMD(this is in a world where the US signed the CTBT, again something that we may do sometime in the future), or the use of WMD will face trade sanctions.
4. Countries that engage in blatant violations in human rights. Organizations such as Red Cross, Amnesty international, and the UN will keep us informed about this actions.
The US could use its' status as the worlds largest consumer to the benefit of hard working underdeveloped countries and to the detriment of countries that scoff at human rights. For the benefit of all humanity.
These previous arguments remember are based on a concession of the point that WTO is free trade, but as I will elaborate further here this is far from the truth.
The IMF which is another of the three organizations(are they NGO's(non-governmental organziatinons) or IGO's(inter-governmental organization? You tell me) that make up the World Bank.
The IMF provides loans on a massive scale to "stabilize currency" this is to help balance the world economy. These are very admirable ends, but the means are devious.
If you have seen the movie "The Corporation" you are familiar with the privatization of water in Honduras. The government because it was beholden to corporate interests by taking the large IMF loan was required to follow some of the stipulations in the loan.
Now think for a second how much a leader of this country cares that he borrowed a trillion dollars and has no idea how his country is going to pay it back. If worse comes to worse, he gets on a plane and meets up with his friends who he helped fuck his own country(large business leaders). So the elites in this country take their graft off the top of the loan and then disburse it to the various agencies and organizations that the Stipulations within the contract tell you to. Borrowing for these leaders means a few extra million in YOUR OWN POCKET. Borrowing for the citizens means indentured servitude to the economic elite which takes the form of the WTO consumer monopoly. As we have seen in the past the real pets of FDI are not people who truly represent the people like Lula or Chavez, they are people like Pinochet and the Shah, or Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan. These are the people who the US financiers give money to.
The most important obvious violation of political values is the loss of sovereignty. Ever hear those seperatists/confederates/militiamentypes/hate-taxes-more-than-death-of-family-member crowd talking about how the UN violates their sovereignty? Well whatever argument they have I can't even articulate, because the UN causes absolutely NO loss of sovereignty for the US we just ignore the UN when it asks us to do things that we don't want, same thing with the international criminal court.
In these situations though, the developing nation is forced to enact economic policies as they are laid out in the loan. So for instance Honduras had to privatize water AND MAKE RAIN WATER ILLEGAL!!! This is so a United States corporation could then sell them their water at a profit, this ended up costing a third of a day's work for these people JUST TO HAVE WATER FOR THEIR FAMILY IN THE 21ST CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a direct violation of sovereignty which was okayed by the political elite of said country. This is the situation which makes me recall the way Zach DeLaRocha always refers to these elites and corporations as vultures stealing change from already impoverished people. It is a disgusting inhumane act privatizing water in an underdeveloped country. CERTAIN GOODS NEED TO BE NATIONALIZED BECAUSE THEY ARE HARD TO EARN PROFITS WITH BUT PROVIDE A GOOD TO THE PUBLIC, WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD WE PAY TAXES!!!!!!!!
For instance people call this operating "at a loss" I just wanted to apply this to one industry and one industry only, because no one ever does. (I'm kind of proud of this thought process haha, go ahead make fun of the guy who is skeptical about all the money we pay on the military) THe military industrial complex has been operating at a loss since 1776. We only tolerate this, because it keeps our country safe, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME THING WITH HEALTH CARE???!!! Keep it around because there are MILLIONS without health care RIGHT NOW!!! Also we can stop privatizing prisons, this is disgusting that these stocks are wall street pets, the real money is not in caging and dehumanizing people for long periods of time the profit comes on the market, because all these people know the Prison Industrial Complex will only grow(because these individuals support the drug war and mandatory minimum/sentencing guildines, these policies will continue to drive incarceration rates higher and higher until there are more black men in prison than college.....wait....this is already true.......and there are 2 million prisoners now???) Especially at a time when an individual who still believes in Reagonomics and even a supports a more radical version comes in to power and the economy goes to shit like right now, the incarceration rate will climb faster under these conditions.
Poverty will always be with us, it will always be the second worst scourge of humanity behind war(if you evaluate war close enough you will find that war is genocide and genocide war, only people usually surrender in war, genocide remove the possibility of surrender for a certain population and thus war continues until an entire demographic/part of the gene pool lays dead). I am not advocating socialism, communism, Marxism, or income redistribution. I do know that widening the economic gap is bad for us and bad for our children as well as immoral. I do also know that lessening the economic gap is humane and ethical; and will have great long term benefits. So when you see a policy that prima facie supports the cause of widening the economic gap as a moral end in and of itself you will not be confused by the pundits and you will reject evil on face. Examples: The abolishment of the estate tax(a tax that was encouraged by Jefferson to stop the advent of an aristocratic society). The lowering or abolishment of capital gains tax. The lowering or abolishment of Dividend taxes. The lowering or abolishment of the upper classes tax percentage by substantial amounts while throwing the middle class a bone of a few decimal percentage points. Abolishment of higher education subsidies at state and federal levels. flat taxes or regressive taxation systems. Most efforts at privitzation only benefit one group and that is the 1% that owns 50% of the stocks, NEVER forget that there is a small minority with most of the money. No I don't want to take it and redistribute it I just don't want to see their majority share grow so large it paralyzes the other 95% of the population with poverty.
Ask yourself: Has our country done anything you can recall in the past 20 years FOR the working poor of this country?
All I see is the opposite and if you said "welfare" you're wrong, policies have centered around "welfare reform", which is hill-speak for abolishment.
1% OF THE UNITED STATES OWNS 50% OF THE STOCK.
And if you're that guy who says that type of shit, NO I am not a Marxist or an advocate of revolution, I just disagree with the United State's view that widening the economic gap is a moral good.
-Jimothy J. Jones
With this mic device I spit nonfiction
Who got tha power
This be my question
Tha mass or the few In this torn nation?
Tha priest tha book or tha congregation?
Tha politricks who rob and hold down your zone?
Or those who give tha thieves tha key to their homes?
Tha pig who's free to murder one Shucklak
Or survivors who make a move and murder one back?
-Rage Against the Machine "Mic Check"
The economic gap between rich and poor is growing.
The US's largest employer "Wal-Mart", owned by the Walton Family one of the richest families in the US, does not let employees organize and thus does not pay them for overtime, gouges the living wage people need, and allows many terminations without just cause.
The WTO and IMF continue their rampage through developing countries. Every developing country in history has used nationalization of industry and protectionism of infant industry to foster growth. This is sometimes called "Import Substitution Industrialization". This model of International Political economy does not have good long term benefits, it will end up creating industry that is not competitive internationally, but it can help build infrastructure in a less developed country. What the WTO or IMF do is offer billions (or trillions if you remember the IMF's loan to Russia back in the day that Trillions of dollars just well........disappeard!!! AND WAS FOUND LATER BEING LAUNDERED THROUGH THE BANK OF NEW YORK!!!!) to a nation's "leaders", these elites that run these countries that have much wider economic gaps than developed countries, and convince the middle class it is in their benefit to borrow large sums of money. So there is a ton of money all of a sudden in the government and it follows with massive foreign direct investment from as Friedman calls them "The electronic herd". This is good right? Won't this will help nations that are largely un-industrialized and not prepared to be competitive in the world market?
The problem is these underdeveloped countries CANNOT compete with the world market so they sink when "free trade" is instituted. OK lets concede for a few paragraphs that what the WTO and IMF push on people is truly free trade and lets discuss the effects.
A country that does not have competitive goods will fail in a free market economy, if a country is young with infant industry then they have no chance competing with the North Atlantic countries.
So how do they sell their products?
There is a term that is used that can refer to federalism or a monopolized free market: a race to the bottom. The argument here is that if the United States(worlds largest consumer[the customer you want to have really really badly]) asks for some bauxite or copper or rubber now lets say there are 5 developing countries that sell these three different raw materials. Country A offers Bauxite for (I apologize for making numbers up but I do not know current market value of these materials) lets say 20 dollars a unit. The US then goes to country B and says "We got country A over here offerin' us 20 dollars a unit." So country B says 19 dollars per unit. By the time we get to country E its 16 dollars a unit, so the US goes back to Country A tells them who Country E offers at 16 and they offer at 15. This is because all developing countries desperately want the US for instance to buy their materials, because we are such a massive consumer of said materials. So to lose the US as a partner would be catastrophic for your country(even worse than selling your raw materials for half of what they are worth).
So we are left with underdeveloped countries, which are underdeveloped, because of the "race to the bottom" North Atlantic countries create to benefit themselves. So the monopoly here is in the hands of the consumer between the US, Britain, Germany, France, and maybe a few smaller world powers like Brazil, Japan, and China.
WAIT THATS NOT A MONOPOLY YOU JUST LISTED MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!
Remember the WTO? thats the organization these countries created a large forum in which all the countries of the organization automatically give new nations "Most Favored Nation" trading status(a status that means you are entitled to the minimum amount of protectionism as defined by whatever nation you trade with which has the least trade barriers).
So we cannot really call a monopoly of consumers that intend to create a race to the bottom as free trade. Its like we had a huge head start and now we force all developing nations instead of adoping the ISI model from above, and instead adopt the Export Led Industrialization(ELI) strategy. The ELI's biggest downfall is the race to the bottom which I explained above. So the United States of America through the WTO is essentially forcing countries to become based on a "cash crop" type system, to avoid a race to the bottom a country must find their own "niche" and only produce that one product or material. This way we end up forcing countries to mine all their own raw materials and natural resources AND GIVE IT TO US FOR LESS THAN MARKET VALUE!!!! Soon these underdeveloped countries will run out of raw resources and they will have no infrastructure of industry or agriculture to fall back on. These countries will only put a drag on the world economy hurting our children in the future.
Whats the alternative you say?
An international trade agreement based on human rights. Countries like Saudi Arabia that behead individuals in public squares will have trade barriers placed upon them. Countries like China that have had above ground nuclear tests after the test ban treaty will be punished through tariffs. We can also discourage foreign direct investment(FDI) through governmental taxes on certain regimes: If you wanna invest in Pinochet it will cost you more, if you want to invest in Milosevic you have to pay a higher tax, or if you want to support Saudi royals it will cost you extra. This would not be hard, in fact it would be much easier than it is now, but we as Americans would have to be prepared to pay a few extra pennies for our consumption, because the price of raw materials will return to its real market price after the consumer monopoly is deconstructed.
1. Countries that engage in Genocidal actions will have trade barriers making it more expensive for them to sell to the US and making it more expensive for people within our country to buy these products. .
2. Countries that engage in pre-emptive warfare(This is in a world where the US has not lost its mind because of the murders on 9/11, I see this kind of world in my generations future) will face protectionist barriers.
3. Countries that participate in the proliferation of WMD, any testing of WMD(this is in a world where the US signed the CTBT, again something that we may do sometime in the future), or the use of WMD will face trade sanctions.
4. Countries that engage in blatant violations in human rights. Organizations such as Red Cross, Amnesty international, and the UN will keep us informed about this actions.
The US could use its' status as the worlds largest consumer to the benefit of hard working underdeveloped countries and to the detriment of countries that scoff at human rights. For the benefit of all humanity.
These previous arguments remember are based on a concession of the point that WTO is free trade, but as I will elaborate further here this is far from the truth.
The IMF which is another of the three organizations(are they NGO's(non-governmental organziatinons) or IGO's(inter-governmental organization? You tell me) that make up the World Bank.
The IMF provides loans on a massive scale to "stabilize currency" this is to help balance the world economy. These are very admirable ends, but the means are devious.
If you have seen the movie "The Corporation" you are familiar with the privatization of water in Honduras. The government because it was beholden to corporate interests by taking the large IMF loan was required to follow some of the stipulations in the loan.
Now think for a second how much a leader of this country cares that he borrowed a trillion dollars and has no idea how his country is going to pay it back. If worse comes to worse, he gets on a plane and meets up with his friends who he helped fuck his own country(large business leaders). So the elites in this country take their graft off the top of the loan and then disburse it to the various agencies and organizations that the Stipulations within the contract tell you to. Borrowing for these leaders means a few extra million in YOUR OWN POCKET. Borrowing for the citizens means indentured servitude to the economic elite which takes the form of the WTO consumer monopoly. As we have seen in the past the real pets of FDI are not people who truly represent the people like Lula or Chavez, they are people like Pinochet and the Shah, or Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan. These are the people who the US financiers give money to.
The most important obvious violation of political values is the loss of sovereignty. Ever hear those seperatists/confederates/militiamentypes/hate-taxes-more-than-death-of-family-member crowd talking about how the UN violates their sovereignty? Well whatever argument they have I can't even articulate, because the UN causes absolutely NO loss of sovereignty for the US we just ignore the UN when it asks us to do things that we don't want, same thing with the international criminal court.
In these situations though, the developing nation is forced to enact economic policies as they are laid out in the loan. So for instance Honduras had to privatize water AND MAKE RAIN WATER ILLEGAL!!! This is so a United States corporation could then sell them their water at a profit, this ended up costing a third of a day's work for these people JUST TO HAVE WATER FOR THEIR FAMILY IN THE 21ST CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a direct violation of sovereignty which was okayed by the political elite of said country. This is the situation which makes me recall the way Zach DeLaRocha always refers to these elites and corporations as vultures stealing change from already impoverished people. It is a disgusting inhumane act privatizing water in an underdeveloped country. CERTAIN GOODS NEED TO BE NATIONALIZED BECAUSE THEY ARE HARD TO EARN PROFITS WITH BUT PROVIDE A GOOD TO THE PUBLIC, WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD WE PAY TAXES!!!!!!!!
For instance people call this operating "at a loss" I just wanted to apply this to one industry and one industry only, because no one ever does. (I'm kind of proud of this thought process haha, go ahead make fun of the guy who is skeptical about all the money we pay on the military) THe military industrial complex has been operating at a loss since 1776. We only tolerate this, because it keeps our country safe, WHY CAN'T WE DO THE SAME THING WITH HEALTH CARE???!!! Keep it around because there are MILLIONS without health care RIGHT NOW!!! Also we can stop privatizing prisons, this is disgusting that these stocks are wall street pets, the real money is not in caging and dehumanizing people for long periods of time the profit comes on the market, because all these people know the Prison Industrial Complex will only grow(because these individuals support the drug war and mandatory minimum/sentencing guildines, these policies will continue to drive incarceration rates higher and higher until there are more black men in prison than college.....wait....this is already true.......and there are 2 million prisoners now???) Especially at a time when an individual who still believes in Reagonomics and even a supports a more radical version comes in to power and the economy goes to shit like right now, the incarceration rate will climb faster under these conditions.
Poverty will always be with us, it will always be the second worst scourge of humanity behind war(if you evaluate war close enough you will find that war is genocide and genocide war, only people usually surrender in war, genocide remove the possibility of surrender for a certain population and thus war continues until an entire demographic/part of the gene pool lays dead). I am not advocating socialism, communism, Marxism, or income redistribution. I do know that widening the economic gap is bad for us and bad for our children as well as immoral. I do also know that lessening the economic gap is humane and ethical; and will have great long term benefits. So when you see a policy that prima facie supports the cause of widening the economic gap as a moral end in and of itself you will not be confused by the pundits and you will reject evil on face. Examples: The abolishment of the estate tax(a tax that was encouraged by Jefferson to stop the advent of an aristocratic society). The lowering or abolishment of capital gains tax. The lowering or abolishment of Dividend taxes. The lowering or abolishment of the upper classes tax percentage by substantial amounts while throwing the middle class a bone of a few decimal percentage points. Abolishment of higher education subsidies at state and federal levels. flat taxes or regressive taxation systems. Most efforts at privitzation only benefit one group and that is the 1% that owns 50% of the stocks, NEVER forget that there is a small minority with most of the money. No I don't want to take it and redistribute it I just don't want to see their majority share grow so large it paralyzes the other 95% of the population with poverty.
Ask yourself: Has our country done anything you can recall in the past 20 years FOR the working poor of this country?
All I see is the opposite and if you said "welfare" you're wrong, policies have centered around "welfare reform", which is hill-speak for abolishment.
1% OF THE UNITED STATES OWNS 50% OF THE STOCK.
And if you're that guy who says that type of shit, NO I am not a Marxist or an advocate of revolution, I just disagree with the United State's view that widening the economic gap is a moral good.
-Jimothy J. Jones
With this mic device I spit nonfiction
Who got tha power
This be my question
Tha mass or the few In this torn nation?
Tha priest tha book or tha congregation?
Tha politricks who rob and hold down your zone?
Or those who give tha thieves tha key to their homes?
Tha pig who's free to murder one Shucklak
Or survivors who make a move and murder one back?
-Rage Against the Machine "Mic Check"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)