In my previous post, when I referred to Michael Jackson as a “sicko perv,” you can say what you want about him and include the phrase “child molester” if you want to, but I believe in “presumption of innocence.” He was acquitted of that, but any grown man who has little boys in his bed over night–and he openly admitted to this–really is a “sicko” and a “perv,” because that’s perverted behavior, especially if you’re not related to the children. It’s perverted behavior because it’s an invasion of the children’s boundaries. Jackson overstepped those boundaries in doing that. It’s just wrong when people are invasive against others, especially children. I try to be understanding when he stated that he was abused as a little boy, and he felt his “childhood was taken away from him” because of being made to start in performing at such a young age. But that’s still no excuse for such invasive behavior towards little children.
Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives voted for another huge increase in fascism and further erosion of our liberty. And, they took some time for a moment of silence to mourn the death of a sicko perv, of which there are many in Congress.
One hopes that the more sane among us will mourn the further loss of freedom that this Congress is taking away, and maybe next year’s elections can remove many of those now in Congress.
So, let’s see if I have this right. Goldman Sachs receives $billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts last Fall. And now, they had the most profitable period ever in the first half of 2009, so they pay the $billions back to the Feds to escape the obligations attached to the bailout money (that was extorted from taxpayers), AND still have enough to give themselves the biggest bonuses ever!
Hmmm. What exactly could have enabled Goldman Sachs to have the “most profitable” period ever within months after such a big national economic downturn, to make it possible for them to give themselves such prospective big bonuses? Was it the…TARP money? Did that…stimulate them?
There’s something very unsettling about all this. They did pay back the bailout billions. But, ethically, wouldn’t they owe the payers of what “stimulated” their huge profits, like one might pay for a service of some kind? Maybe it should be similar to what regular people have to pay for loans, like in “interest.” Or paying a professional “financial planner” to help regular people try to profit from what they have.
Well, I’m a proud capitalist, because capitalism is the only system that protects freedom, while socialism uses fascism to rob from people to give to others. In this case, Americans were robbed to “bail out” financial firms (based on the lies and threats of “doom and gloom”), but really it looks like people were fooled into making already rich people richer. Period.
It’s too bad that ignorant control freaks in Congress and the White House are pursuing a fascist health care system, despite the high costs of health care being caused by government-imposed regulations and bureaucracy, expensive malpractice insurance and lack of individual responsibility and prevention among too many people. Instead of physicians being in cahoots with the greedy pharmaceutical industry and relying on prescriptions for patients, they ought to better inform patients on the various preventions for conditions, like taking vitamins and limiting alcohol consumption, and not smoking, and having regular exercise routines.
Reasonable people shouldn’t want the government involved in their private health matters, which, if it’s none of their neighbors’ damn business, it’s certainly none of the government’s damn business!
Also, I know it’s difficult to quit smoking, despite the fact that smokers light a cigarette and put it up to their mouths and inhale by their own free will. No one puts a gun to their heads and forces them. Yes, there are chemical processes going on in the brain that causes smokers to “need” a “cigarette fix,” I know. But it requires a strong determination to overcome that chemical “need,” and other techniques such as gradual reduction and patches, chewing gum, hypnosis, etc., are helpful or even necessary, but you can do it. “Cold turkey” is a bad idea, as is sudden withdrawal of any chemically addictive substances, because various parts of the body are just too “used to” the nicotine.
Now, for you fat slobs out there who can’t resist those cheese cakes and Twinkies, and Ring Dings, and pizzas etc., I have less sympathy. This “addiction to junk food” that some people have is mostly psychological, in my opinion. And this junk food stuff is also largely responsible for coronary disease as well as obesity, and problems in the digestive area. I think people need the “sweets fix” to satisfy emotional needs that aren’t being met, to fill a particular “emptiness.” It’s sad that these fat slobs refuse to control their own lives, and instead want to force others to pay for their extra doctors visits or medical procedures that are results of their poor food choices. A lot of problems in the digestive area have psychological etiologies. That is why the lower part of the colon is called the “Sigmund Freudal Colon.”
Has anyone asked Alex Rodriguez how he feels about David Letterman’s sarcastic remark, referring to him as having “knocked up” a teenager? He is somebody too, you know.
Speaking of that, it could be that David Letterman’s judgment is affected by the heart bypass surgery he had about 8 or 9 years ago. Such a surgery uses a heart-lung machine, and recent studies have shown that a side effect of that, known as “pump head,” in which the patient’s cognitive abilities become “negatively affected,” could have long-term consequences as well as a temporary reaction. Some people have speculated that former President Bill Clinton’s bad temper tantrums during last year’s election campaign may have been in some way related to his heart surgery in 2004.
Apparently, Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Dept. have dropped the case against several African-Americans alleged to have intimidated White-voters/poll workers in Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love.” And he dropped the case several weeks ago, and I only just heard about it from a talk radio show. When searching the Internet, all I can find is the Washington Times’s editorial about this action, Michelle Malkin’s column about it, and maybe several blogs, but no actual news items. I searched the Washington Post’s website, and the Boston Globe’s website, and gave up after that. Is the Mainstream News Media really so biased that they probably would put the news of the aforementioned Holder DOJ action only if the races were reversed, if White people were accused of intimidating Black voters and poll workers? Supposedly there was a video taken of the whole alleged incident, and sworn testimony by 1960s civil rights activist lawyer Bartle Bull saying it was the worst case of voter intimidation he’d ever seen. This is from an Attorney General who called this a “nation of (racist) cowards” right after the country elected its first African-American president, who received a majority of White votes!
Recently the California State Supreme Court upheld a referendum to ban same-sex marriage, and New Hampshire’s governor signed a bill into law legalizing it. I’m so tired of hearing about “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage,” and every time a talk show is discussing it I change the station. First, why are we still debating this issue in the 21st Century? And what business is it of the state who is married and who isn’t? And who is the state to allow or forbid any kind of private relationship or contract? One would think that conservatives would want homosexuals to be in a monogamous commitment, rather than living a promiscuous, multi-partner lifestyle. I personally favor traditional marriage, but there should be no laws addressing the issue altogether.
The Declaration of Independence states that, among our natural Rights are the “Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And that implies that an individual’s pursuit of happiness may not include any violation of any other individual’s life, liberty or property. People have a right to be involved in a marriage, whether or not it’s in line with society’s common description of “marriage,” as long as they don’t violate anyone else’s life, liberty or property.
I’m no expert on contract law, but a marriage contract is a contract, and people have a right to establish voluntary contracts, with the terms of those contracts being the private business of those involved, and it’s really no one else’s business. People’s private contracts certainly are none of their neighbors’ business, so they ought not be any of the state’s business. Who is the state to determine which contracts are valid and which aren’t, based on some arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with the protection of life, liberty and property? If a party in a contract has some dispute with another, or wants to sue for “breach of contract,” then the state gets involved to help settle the disagreement or suit.
Some people are just so worried that same-sex marriages will lead to some kind of “degradation of society.” Well, what do you think we have now, for crying out loud? Our society has degraded not because of homosexuals being married, but because of many other factors, including the ever-increasing dependence on government to do things it has no business doing, the ever-increasing intrusion of government into our private lives in general, and the influence of the sickos of pop culture on our society. Other factors of societal degradation include bad parenting, and allowing people to get away with actual crimes, such as child-molesters, tax-cheating Treasury Secretaries and the incestuously extortionist relationship between Big Business and Big Government. The moralists should stick with these problems of actual immorality.
And some people are worried that allowing same-sex marriage will “negatively affect our population growth.” Just what percentage of the population is homosexual, anyway? Various sources on the Internet give figures ranging from 2-15%. I’ll go with roughly 10%. And what percentage of that 10% consists of those in actual homosexual relationships? And what percentage of that is in long-term relationships who actually want to be married? It can’t be that much. If you’re worried about the society’s future, then enacting laws banning same-sex marriage to promote opposite-sex marriage for “population growth” would then be in the category of “social engineering.”
Conservatives usually speak of the “right to be left alone,” and believe in “small government,” and are critical of the Left for using the state for forced social engineering. If traditional marriage really needs to be protected, then let our cultural institutions such as churches and families, and other social organizations promote it. And let people in the “bully pulpit” such as Rush Limbaugh or Phyllis Schlafly be vocal advocates of traditional, opposite-sex marriage. But don’t use the armed force of government to ban same-sex marriage. Laws should exist to protect people and property, not to engage in social engineering or society planning.
The Justice Department is looking into whether some Big Tech companies are agreeing not to hire each other’s employees and executives. They’re worried about big companies in “collusion.” Here’s what I think about this. In a free society under the rule of law, all companies would have the right to employ whomever they want, and if some companies want to have agreements with each other addressing hiring practices, as a legal contract or as informal verbal agreements, that’s their own business, as long as there’s no fraud or theft involved. Why is the DOJ wasting time and money investigating these non-issues? What business is it of government what agreements Dell or HP or IBM might have?
I’m no expert on “anti-trust” laws, but the actual immoral “collusions” are between businesses and governments. While not related to the aforementioned issue, if a business has a “monopoly” in some industry, any other business has every right to get into that line of production to compete. The problem is when government regulations, taxes, fees and arbitrary restrictions legally prevent smaller businesses or investors from getting in to compete.
Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s empathy reserved only for those who belong to a race or national origin whose past members were victims of discrimination or abuse, whether or not the individual oneself was a victim? Will she have more empathy for a minority homeowner facing eviction because of loan defaults than she would for a white homeowner facing eviction because of loan defaults? Or empathy for a white victim of violent crime as much as for a minority victim? Or as much empathy for a white male being harassed by police as for a minority?
Will Sotomayor have as much empathy for people in Arizona who are victims of the increasingly rampant violent crimes brought about by the invasion of Mexican drug gangs, as much as she might have for “illegal immigrants” of Mexican or other Latin American origin?
In Massachusetts, because of the unwillingness of Gov. Deval Patrick and state legislators to cut excess offices and jobs created by the Patrick Administration and get rid of the criminal double-dipping and triple-dipping of state pensions, we now have more state and local police than ever before, out there catching motorists in speed traps and handing out otherwise tickets for the sole purpose of revenue collection. Where is the empathy for average citizens who are just trying to make an honest living and going about their business only to get harassed and robbed like this? It was the same kind of arrogance with state bureaucrats and police during the 1980s under Gov. Michael Stanley Dukakis who was busy running for president and just slightly out of touch with things. Then we had Gov. Willard Mitt Romney, himself busy running for president, and because he had so much empathy for people without health insurance, he had to push through his Mandatory Health Insurance Law–”You must, MUST have health insurance,” he said in his bill-signing speech that day, with his detectable Locust Valley Lockjaw accent. (He repeated the word, “must.”) His empathy certainly wasn’t available for the many residents and businesses who wanted to opt out of the program, and many of whom had fled or will flee the state. What business is it of the government whether someone has health insurance? How will it be enforced? If someone doesn’t participate, fine them. What if they don’t pay the fine? Jail them. With more and more police. Wait, they’re still busy collecting taxes on the highways.
The purpose of the police is not to act as zealous tax collectors, but to prevent actual crimes, by…”policing” the streets. That’s why they’re called that. My empathy is for victims of crimes, Black or White, Hispanic or Asian, and for victims of police and state intrusions. I really hope we’ll get an equal distribution of empathy from a Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.