It's an interessting dynamic of tea party campaigning that they go for phantom, non existent issues. They get more traction from issues in their "own mind' than actual issues. For instence Glen Beck and others have spoken of a Wyman Republic style hyper-inflation to hit several years into the Obama Administration's first term. Others said when I said later "this hasn't happened" told me, "Well, it's only because the Master Switch hasn't been thrown yet. The money spigot has not yet been turned on", whatever that means. Now you have Anne Romney as a one trick pony and is going to be commenting on thirty seconds of off the cuff remarks by a low level Obama Aid as her one claim to fame from now till election. And getting to our main topic of gun control- do you remember the massive run on gun anunition just before President Obama took office? It was said that the President was about to take massive measures to curtail gun ownership rights. But as pointed out on the Hardball program "This President has been the LEAST interested in enacting new gun control laws of any recent president we've had". Indeed the dynamic has not been laws restricting guns but rather the vast expansion of rights with "stand your ground" laws, which police, DA, and other officers of the law one and all condemn as a bad idea - to have this "stand your ground" law. But the NRA doesn't care. As late as 2007 Mitt Romney told Meet the Press that he "didn't agree with the NRA on everything". I can only assume from his speech to the NRA on Friday that NOW he DOES agree with them on anything and everything they want. It's out and out hysteria. People want laws against assault 50 calabre assault rifels, which were considering for a while, but not now. People wanted the size of bullet magazines restricted to eleven bullets in a clip rather than 33, which the shooter of Gabriel Giffards had in Arizona last year. People would have not have died had we restricted the size to a lower number like eleven. The NRA is hysterical because people want to restrict gun stores to selling any owner only one gun per month. That would mean you could by twelve in the space of a year. But it would halt major dealers in arms, arming perhaps for a riot or something. I do not regard the tea party's position on this issue as a winning one.
We now hear that Obama's secret service agents were nabbed in South America for drunkedness and prostitution and the like. I don't know what's wrong with having a little fun as long as they've "checked the area out" or whatever they were supposed to do before the President's arrival. They speak of concentric "rings" of protection that any President has. It's more elaborate than we believe. These agents of course were suspended. We also have one time presidential candidate John Edwards on trial for money misappropiation. My only take here is "since when is what Edwards did any different from what local and national politicians do all over America". "Hummm?"
Brazil is one of the five up and coming economicly prosperous nations collectively known as BRICS, and these consist of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. But the thing is that Brazil has the sort of eutopian economy many Democrats wish we had. The people don't work too hard and they get a lot of time off, and the workers as a whole get a better shake in life than workers here to. And Brazil had oil and Obama wants it, and is trying to get them to sell it to us to lessen our ties to the Mideast. Of course Brazil and Iran are close because there is a natural brotherhood between oil producing nations, and anything ONE nation does to raise the price of oil mutually benefits all the other nations. It would seem that this President is generally popular in South America and this is a good thing. The President did announce just to keep the Miami Cubans happy, that "If Cuba attended this Latin American conference that he as President would boycott it". The republican responder to the President's Radio address this morning said one constructive thing. That is there are a lot of proposed new "red tape" regulations on oil refineries which will tend to choke out the pipeline of supply. I know from time to time the president has put various Energy laws on temporary hold, and I believe this would be another good time to do that.
From a personal point of view I joined one of these on line social networks. But I am kind of thinking they aren't my cup of tea. They are more of a vehical for transacting present relations rather than aw a way of exploring new ones, though I realize this is also possible. But the context of these sites seems to be to restrict your audience to a specialized few who spare some particular memory of an issue in common. My philosophy is "Why not just pick up the telephone and speak to them live, or else send them a direct E mail". And this whole business about "texting" has always puzzled me.
As Thom Hartman points out there is another whole dynamic to this "war on women". It's been scientifically shown that any nation where women are "liberated" and have rights like men do to have equal pay for equal work and all- - don't have as many children and thus help a nation's over-population problem. Since this IS another of those real problems that nobody is talking about (much as gun poliferation is) this to me seems a real efficient way of at least alleviating it. By as it were "giving women power over their own bodies". As such all these cries and moans by the tea party this week are probably falling on deaf ears as far as women are concerned. Women are a lot smarter than people think. To be honest, I think women are a lot smarter and exercise more rational sense on certain issues than we men do. You can't put the feminist geenie back in the bottle now.
I would now like to comment on this whole issue raised in my last post of "being in two places at the same time". People would point out "You know, rats are similar too - - we'd say they have almost identical personalities, if that's your criteria. Yet they compete with each other madly. And with Twins you see no more fierce competition than you do with Twins. OK this is a hard one to explain but I'll try. First of all you would never Envy yourself nor experiance ANY emotion tword this "other person" that you wouldn't perceive about yourself. In terms of experiances - - you have already HAD his experiances and he's had yours even if neither of you always know it. You know it as a metaphysical truth. For that matter as you know I have the theory that all of us has already LIVED our own futures and if we could "tape into this knowledge" we'd save ourselves a lot of grief and as it were, "Live more efficiently." So some would say "What if white was your favorite color and you decided to play a chess game. Who would be white?" The same situation might arise if you were in like some para military situation where there was a two person task facing you. Which one would take task A and which one would get task B? First of all you could never Envy yourself. As Dylan put it once in a song, perhaps in "Pledging my Time", the line "Somebody's got to go, and I can't be the last person to leave". The "somebody's got to do it" would be a Truth well understood by BOTH of you and you'd know it intuitive. As with close friends if one of you looked and saw something unusual - - which was behind the other's back, the Other person would instantly read your expression and turn around wondering what got your attention. Obviously you'd never LIE to the other person nor flatter him (or her) in ways you'd never flatter yourself. If the other person had a thought - - it would not be a novel one to you. You'd never go "Gee, I wish I'd had the creative insight to come up with that". You would be the same person but have different "biological brain knowledge". En-grams are not experiancial knowledge per se. This is what we call acquired or "learned' knowledge. Whereas En-grams are what you might call hard-wired or programmed knowledge. It's your Method of Opporation of dealing with Reality. I hope this little paragraph has been helpful in answering any questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment