The Republicans are finalizing their political platform but be not deceived; the planks in this platform were nailed down months ago and they are sticking to it. What will be going on in the next week is just all that "official" window dressing. This platform bars abortion in ALL cases, and that includes all forms of rape, even forceable ( ) and incest, and also the life of the mother in casts such as eptopic pregnency, where abortions have always been legal here in California. This platform demands bringing back litteracy tests for voting, which the Supreme Court declared illegal decades ago, and also insists on photo ID's for all voters. This platform pretty much signs off on the Ryan-Akin medical health care plan. No matter what they say verbally any legal expert will inform you that what is written always supersedes verbal promises. Romney and Ryan are trying to run away from this Republican platform but they are as it were wedded to it. They want to eliminate mortgage interest deductions for the average home owner. Of course you can't be reminded too often the Ryan economic plan drops Mitt Romney's federal income taxes to below one percent. I am informed that Ryan's plan features and counts on the same medicare cuts in funding that are in the Affordable Care act. These savings will save money for the consumer but also will prolong the life of medicare. The thing is that Mitt Romney has virtually NEVER been on a regular press conference show like Face the Nation where he has to face probing questions for a half hour. The debates will reveal that this Emperor has no clothes, because Romney will have to face something he's never had to face before- public scruteny. The jump in the polls for Obama should be impressive in the days following the Democratic concention- - and by the time the official NFL season starts- - Obama could well be up double digits in the public oppinion polls, and he won't look back. It was pointed out all the similarities between Paul Ryan and Dick Chaney. Each will initiate tax policies tailor made to their business interests. In Chaney's case it was the military industrial complex. In Ryan's case it's Bain Capital because Paul Ryan's older brother is heavily involved with Bain Capital, just like Romney is heavily involved. There is a never ending stream of speculations as to what happened with Mitt Romney's finances the ten years of income taxes we do not have access to. Both Ryan and Chaney are strong, politically oppinioned right wing idiologs, who were picked by a weak Presidential Nominee of their party. There can be no divergence of values between Ryan and Romney because as I say the Platform of the Republican party was written by the Tea Party months ago, and they are insisting on full compliance because there will be severe repercussions from the political base if they don't get it.
We had a lengthly except from George Washington's blog in the last posting. Too often members of the medical profession say "You didn't see that", "You didn't experiance that". In 911 there is a sea of eye witnesses whose oppinions are being ignored by the government because they contradict the official cover story. It's not a difficult thing to determine one's sanity- - when it comes to reporting some unusual situation or threat. First of all is he Sane in all other areas of his life? Is his story open to questioning and scruteny and disection? How does he respond to this challenge? Does the story hang together rationally? You can tell if it might be a lie if it seems overly rehearsed, or said word for word identically with every telling. Does the story "pan out" in terms of psychological probability in terms of the human players in the story? But now if Dr. Levy gets his way with his book, some residents here and at founders may be told 'You didn't write this" when it comes to rights to their own material. This just dawned on me this morning. Nobody thought of it for me. People facing buy outs of energy discoveries are then told "You didn't intent this". Judy told me with my book on August 31st of 1980 on Sunday evening of 'You didn't write your book" in essence. She says "Of course you know that it was only the will of God that allowed you to even write the book". She said these words in an angry and castigating way, as if she had some chip on her shoulder. Farmers are told "You didn't grow this" because a few genetically altered seeds blew on to your property. So often patients are told "You don't really feel that way", when clearly they've thought it through. Corporations will tell wronged consumers "You don't want to do that" when they are threatened with law suits. In the "tort reform" madness we are in I'm told that plantiff victoms of shoddy products lose their case 93% of the time. One of the major things that attracted me to scientology was their antipathy to psychiatry. I feel somewhat differently now about psychaiatry but still- - - my family abused and distorted every medical term in the book to evade their own culpability. Certainly the scenario laid out in that George Washington's blog is scarey. Nobody wants to think "the government is after me". But they say to turn a liberal into a conservative all he has to experiance is being mugged or robbed. May I suggest "if it hasn't happened to you" and it has NOT happened to me, either. we're in no position to Judge.
People want to know if the Rolling Stones song is true about "Someone says that somehow there is something more to pay - - for sins that we comitted yesterday. I told you Christianity could be summed up in the slogan "It is NOT a question of Sin". I did a posting on this. It entirely about whether or not you are Chosen, regardless of your state of "Sin". In fact if you're read my stuff you know I don't believe God as Christians think of him even exists in a Moral sense. Something else occurred to me today in terms of slogans. "It's not a question of Resurrection". Because guess what. The same people who invented Christianity were alive when they began telling their Story, and they were alive at the end of it. Nobody died. Just like Stephano on Days of our Lives never died. It was about a fake murder so the perpetrator could work out his own particular revenge fantasies. It's like Hitler's burning of the Reikstag in Germany and blaming the Jews. We talked about karmic gravity and how it is a Universal forse and magnitude of the Ego involved- - doesn't matter. But in keeping with physics principles, Big Egos are harder to detu or tempt into "sin" than little Egoes. In like manner when a Big Ego falls, it's a lot harder to "turn him around" than it is a little Ego. But you people may have a lingering question I'd like to answer now. "If the big ego is next to the little ego- - - how then can you gain "karma points" just by being bigger? It's kind of rescaling in Sketch. In other words when you down tune guitar strings- - it's like slowing down the tape on play back- - and the accoustics mates the perportionally larger instrument needed to make THAT sound. But the kicker is that since karmic gravity does not accordingly "re scale" if you draw it out geometrically- - you are higher up in the funnel now than you were. Your karmic sin gravity is less. The down side of this, of course is that your "fuel tank" is way down- - and if you have to make any sudden accelerations- - you could find yourself wanting. It's kind of like the Smallville principle with mass and time and how they are connected. I told you I learned this mass and time connection while watching "The Flash" and no that is not a streaker on TV - - at least not that kind. By the way neither mass nor time has ontological supremicy or "hegemony". They both have equal status. Anyhow this principle I laid out here is kind of the same thing. Since there is one variable that DOESN'T change- - - then everything else changes. Capish? I would also like to make a tiny modification in my use of the word "ontological". I said that when an object vanishes from our Universe- - - we can't see it and for all scientific purposes it has ceased to be part of OUR Universe or "event horizon". I said it still had "ontological existance". Perhaps a better word there would be "objective". And in case you are wondering- - All Provable things are Objective- - - but not all Objective things are Provable. So grab Lisa Simpson's notebook and review your venn diagrams. It's almost dinner time. I'll be back with one more paragraph.
OK I'm back and don't look too hard at your watches- - that is the correct time. We eat early in these parts. We had taco salad with some kind of reddish meat (?) (sauce) refried beans, lettuce, cheese, and sour cream. I only mention the meat because the new guy said his doctor told him not to eat red meat, and he showed somebody some form. (?) I don't know. Dora was by with generous seconds and there was tapioca pudding for desert. There were a couple more remarks more properly part of the previous paragraph but I wanted them separate and away from the rest of the paragraph like that form Arlo Guthrie had to fill out for his pre induction physical. Those remarks pertained to 'Have you ever been arrested for some crime which might make you unfit for military service?" Anyhow we were taloking about soul resonance frequencies and I said longer waves were better because they had more energy and greater penetration power through obsticles. Well, you could picture the Ego as tethered to the 'Universe' swinging around it- - - so one could say we were all "tethered to the Universe" so people speak of karma being "giving back to the universe" and such, and may not be wrong at all. Of course I'd also like to correct a thirty old misimpression I may have inadvertantly given about me and Mark Campbell being at the Griffith Park Observatory together. Actually in May of 1981 we were at the LA Museum Complex in Eepoxition Park together. We were never at Griffith Park together. We just both happened to have been fascenated by this display with the orbeting silver balls around the funner spiral. It's a small distinction but I'll make it.
Sometimes things- - such as racial or gender or ritual barriers just get Dropped, and people wonder why. I'll give examples. Country Clubs two generations ago used to routinely exclude Jews. Now the gender barrier om some country clubs is still being broken, hopefully without the tempest of contraversy surrounding the bit with the Jewish people. Tarot cards used to contain an additional suit as opposed to Playing Cards, and they still have it. It's called Knights. But somewhere along the way it was just dropped. For a while they dropped "Freshmen" as a year in high school. But it was never really gone entirely because all of the nineth grade courses were still labeled with a "I" and sophomore courses were with a "II" ect. Now the freshmen year is back. They have decimated the second person in English and abolished most all of the words in the language to designate it, along with a lot of other very useful positional pronouns such as yonder. In the book the Lottery, they dropped in the course of time a lot of the old long ritual which used to accompany the Sacrifice. In the New Testament they have this favled "Love Feast" that used to exist among Christians before comunion was taken. But too many people were getting drunk at it so they dropped it. The Mormons dropped the polygamy doctrine. Later they abandoned their "Mark of Cain" and the Black Priesthood prohibition. Who is to say why certain items have been dropped. In our own ZAC Theology we "dropped" one major item that had been around since the inception of the ZAC in September of 1976 back when it was still called the "Zionism Analisis Comittee". Most of the Eagles theological library got wiped out. Songs that still survive are "Too Many Hands", which is about Laura feeling uncomfortable around Calvary of Anaheim people. "Hotel California" title song is about Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. And "Sad Cafe" is about the Palm St House where Zachery spent his first months of life. You could throw in "Good Day in Hell" which could be about Laura's time at UC Irvina psych ward. This was back in early 1981. Really I owe all this to a question or remark that Jimmy Mc Culloch said to Burt Lombard about Mal Evans. And then Mike Bloomfield reminded me that I was "feeding off of my own delusion". That's all I needed to hear. Mal Evans agreed the doctrine should be dropped so it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment