http://theamericancritic.com/featured_rss.phpLatest Featured Articles Posted on The American CriticLatest Featured Articles Posted on The American Critic


New York (CNN) -- The clock is ticking in Washington on the bipartisan super committee, those 12 members of Congress tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving.

More than 140 of their colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, are encouraging them to be bold and go bigger -- reaching $4 trillion of deficit reduction in order to put the U.S. on stable long-term fiscal footing and avoid another round of downgrades.
But if their colleagues' counsel isn't persuasive, there's an additional voice the super committee could find inspiration from -- the original founding father, George Washington.

In his farewell address to his fellow countrymen in 1796, George Washington set out his lessons for future generations. It was penned as the "warnings of a parting friend," and in it, Washington laid out the long-term dangers that his understanding of history and human nature dictated could undermine the independence of our democratic republic.

Washington warned about the dangers of what we would today call hyper-partisans: "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community." These platoons of polarization have driven us to the paralysis we are now in, too often unable to reason together even in the face of crisis.

Crucially, Washington understood that out-of-control debt could undermine American independence. He warned that we must "cherish public credit ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Put on your decoder rings and you'll see that Washington's wisdom could have referred to our own time. After all, much -- though certainly not all -- of the deficits and debts accumulated over the past decade came from two foreign wars. The Afghan war was necessary in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 -- but the war in Iraq, as we now know, was far from "unavoidable" -- it was a war of choice. Moreover, as Sen. John McCain and others pointed out, it was the first time in U.S. history that we did not raise revenues in order to pay for wars. Instead we cut taxes and turned a hard-won surplus into a deficit, which grew exponentially after the stimulus bill under President Obama.

George Washington understood that dealing with debts was government's responsibility, but leaders would be unlikely to make unpopular choices in a democracy unless the public was both enlightened and understanding: "The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives," he said -- meaning the members of Congress. "But it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant."

In other words, man up and deal with math. Paying down debts means raising revenue as well as cutting costs. It is a basic profit and loss ledger. Whining endlessly about taxes ignores their central role in securing our civilization. So sayeth not some commie hippie but George Washington himself.

Bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.

That speaks to the impasse the super committee is at right now -- whether to include any revenue increases to pay down the deficit and the debt. Outright tax increases -- even restoring the Bush tax rates on people who make more than a million dollars a year -- is apparently not on the table right now. More ambitious tax reform is seen as a bridge too far given the limited time frame left.

Nonetheless, there are some slight signs of progress. Sen. Pat Toomey -- former President of the Club for Growth -- deserves credit for recently saying he was open to revenue increases, albeit combined with the reduction of the top tax rate from 35 to 28 percent. This was met with some derision from Democrats who are increasingly hearing from their constituents that the growing gap between the rich and poor in the nation is unsustainable. Democrats have more readily crossed their partisan Rubicon, offering support for modest entitlement reforms as a way of bending the long-term cost curve.

The most hopeful declaration of independence that has occurred in recent weeks is the growing number of Republicans willing to break ranks with anti-tax absolutists. They are putting the Pledge of Allegiance over the no-tax pledge advanced by conservative activist Grover Norquist. "There is a lot of talk about pledges," Ohio Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette said. "It's time to put the pledges in a bonfire."

In some ways what we face now is a choice between George Washington and the Grover Norquists of the world. It is a choice between the long-term national interest and the short-term special interest.

The goals are clear and the path is known. We have the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the Rivlin-Domenici Commission and the Gang of Six plans to look at. We now have a Gang of 140 members of Congress from both parties encouraging the super committee to be bold and go big.

While reaching $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is far better than the automatic cuts to defense and discretionary spending that will take place if the super committee fails, it alone cannot be regarded as a success. It is a stay of execution. Because we'll be right back at the negotiating table in a few months, trying to forestall yet another downgrade.

As the clocks ticks closer to the deadline, the super committee should have the words of George Washington's farewell address echoing in their heads, adding to their sense of urgency, determining not to ungenerously throw "upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

If they are driven by such a sense of generational responsibility, they can declare independence from their respective special interests, forge a constructive compromise and present a balanced bipartisan plan that serves the national interest. They have it in their power to put patriotism over partisanship -- we are waiting to see if they have the will.]]>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:25:14 PST1321201514

I'm sure ratings went through the roof, but eh, humbug.

Let's instead let the human contestants, presuming they can type 90+ wpm, have Google Instant at their finger tips. I'd then be more interested.

While computer intelligence of Watson's level, reliably harnessed, would save humans many steps in any thought process, computer-assisted human intelligence poses a more equitable baseline for evaluating computer intelligence than the Jeopardy-staged computer intelligence vs. human intelligence competition.]]>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:27:04 PST1297916824trademarking her name, I decided to put myself in her shoes and enter the wide world of imagination, as any prudent speculator would.

Please feel free to join in getting the creative wheels turning...







Hmmm... Now just what types of things might Sarah Palin® contribute to our (or China's) economy?








Nah...(lol) Ice cold.
















Mmm... Getting cooler
















Warmer... (seriously!)


















Hotter, much hotter...



















Pretty damn hot now...



















+

OMG, FIRE!]]>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:11:01 PST1296882661
You should be disappointed with the behavior of all those elected officials who are supposed to be “representing the interest” of the population.

Few, congressional members even read the bill, but voted for it just the same. (Verified-information link below)

Nancy Pelosi was quoted; (verified-info-link) see for yourself.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”

Nancy Pelosi remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties. (Shows how she thinks!)

Obama Health Care was a “cheap-shot” for the us citizens by attaching it to another legislative package and “pushing it through” so very quickly!!!

That is why the recent election took so many democrats "out-of-power" and to loose a lot of seat-positions, etc.

Voters did not understand the health care reform law, were not given a chance to discover it's content or even see a full length copy!

How can anyone think this was appropriate behavior for all of our elected Democrats. It was a Democratic controlled vote and received a great-push from Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi.

It clearly shows how terrible politics has become in US when elected officials do not listen to the people and when Democrats think they can make Health Care laws for us without our approval.

More trouble has been discovered with this Health Care Law.

The “Joint Economic Committee” explained that one problem is the direct impact of tax on this “health insurance,” effective in 2014.

The tax will be passed through to consumers in the form of higher costs ($$$) and premiums. (Verified-information link below)

• It increases health costs. This so-called fee on insurance companies would be passed on to consumers, directly increasing the cost of health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and contravening Congress's stated intention that its legislation will reduce health insurance costs.

• It increases taxes. Because this "fee" is effectively an insurance premium tax imposed on policies purchased by half of all Americans, it violates President Barack Obama's repeated promise that most Americans, or at least those with incomes below $250,000, would not see their taxes increased in any way, shape, or form.

• It creates new inequities. Because it would apply to policies purchased from insurers but not to employer self-insured health plans, this insurance premium tax would create new inequities by disadvantaging one source of health insurance coverage relative to another source of coverage, thus creating winners and losers based on where people happen to work.

• It is disingenuous. Labeling these provisions a "fee" imposed on insurance companies is designed to give the impression that it affects only a politically disfavored interest group. In reality, however, since the legislation specifies that it will be apportioned based on each insurer's premium revenues, it would function exactly like a direct insurance premium tax paid by consumers.

• It creates perverse incentives. This tax would apply to those who have purchased health insurance, with the proceeds funding subsidies for those who have not purchased such coverage.

• It distorts markets. The tax would apply to both an insurance company's premium revenue and its revenue from providing "administrative services" (such as claims processing) to employer and union self-insured plans. However, a vendor that provides self-insured plans with administrative services but does not sell health insurance would not be subject to the tax. Thus, self-insured employers would have a financial incentive to prefer "third-party administrators" that are not insurance companies when contracting for administrative services for their plans.

• It expands federal power. This insurance premium tax would create a new, permanent federal tax that could, and likely would, be increased by Congress in future years as the growth in new government spending in the legislation outstrips the growth of revenues to fund that spending.

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

States are fighting back.
My State is Florida.

The Florida legislature voted to place a state “constitutional amendment” on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed.

The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced in 42 states.

Find out what is happening in your State today.
Do you know?





]]>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:59:10 PST1291607950
Building a mosque near the site of defeated enemies is a symbol of conquest for Islam. "We need to consider the facts of history!"

There is mysterious funding ($$$) to pay for construction of this.
Who are the people behind the cash? The money trail ends abruptly.

The real issue behind the controversy to build a 15-story mosque a few yards from Ground Zero is not only about the mysterious funding behind the Cordoba Center initiative. It is primarily about Muslims across the world who would view the site as a victory of the greatest Muslim attack on U.S. soil.

The symbolism could not be clearer. If the Cordoba's House supporters
win the day they are unwittingly declaring their acceptance of Muslim rule.

There is a long cultural history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories. The building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Islam followers will see it as a first step towards the decline of America.

This is what it is all about people. Wake-up!
A church dedicated to "John the Baptist" in 705, fell to Islam rule!

This would not be read in the Muslim world as a sign of the West's tolerance, but of its weakness. In its very long history Islam has converted the sacred shrines of its enemies into mosques. Many were churches or former houses of worships of defeated enemies. Islam is
not a tolerant religion and it's goal is worldwide domination. Death or
jail to anyone who opposes the teachings of Islam.

Islam's most sacred site, al-Kaaba, in Mecca was a pagan shrine that predated Islam by hundreds of years. Mohamed himself, after his army's conquest of Mecca in 630, destroyed hundreds of idols, proclaiming the truth of his new religion, and, since, it has become the hub of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, hajj, and a core pillar of Islam.

Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayad Caliphate proceeded to build the Dome of the Rock, the Masjid Qubat al-Sakhra, on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 689.

Inscribed on the inner walls of the shrine are clear warnings to Christianity, professing Islamic supremacy. Sprawled on the inner octagonal arcade, flowing counterclockwise, the dedication warns Christians and Jews to "not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth" and threatens the Christian Trinity by insisting that "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Having defeated their Christian enemies, the Umayyads built a grand mosque on top of Judaism's most sacred site that contained a clear declaration of Muslim supremacy over their brother Abraham, and all religions.

A church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705, fell to Islam rule.

The Grand Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque, was converted from a church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705.

The world-renown Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was a thousand year-old Christian church before being transformed into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was only converted into a museum in 1935 by ultra-secularist and Turkish founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Over the long history of Muslim territorial advance, thousands of mosques, from Spain to India, were built on sites of important religious or political value.

Islam is a violent religion.



]]>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:56:09 PDT1284069369
"An Arab group was fined for a Holocaust cartoon." A Dutch appeals court convicted an Arab cultural group Thursday of hate speech for placing a cartoon on its website questioning the Holocaust.

The court said in a written judgment the cartoon "is insulting to a group of people, the Jews, because of their race."

The cartoon shows two apparently Jewish men poking a pile of skeletons and discussing whether they can count non-Jews to increase the Holocaust death toll.

Arnhem Appeals Court fined the Dutch arm of the Arab European League $3,210 after overturning a lower court's acquittal of the group.

Islam religious clerics are taking advantage of the freedom found in other nations. They are getting more organized in their approach to
legal issues and are beginning to use the courts to advance their own culture and Islamic laws.

In a reaction on its website, the center welcomed the conviction, saying that the Arab group's anger over Muhammad cartoons "may in no way lead to insulting comments about Jews. It is clear this cartoon had no other aim than to be unnecessarily hurtful to Jews."

Hate speech prosecutions are rare in the Netherlands, but the Arab European League case is one of several high-profile ones to come to court recently.

Lawmaker Geert Wilders, who has become one of the country's most popular politicians on an anti-Islam platform, is facing criminal prosecution later this year for alleged hate speech violations.

Wilders has called for the Quran to be banned and compared it to Hitler's Mein Kampf, and has branded Islam a violent religion."

Islamic censorship enforced by individuals is bad enough, but when the state gets involved, freedom of thought is threatened on an entirely new scale. That's what has happened in several majority-Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

All three have implemented anti-blasphemy laws to prevent any criticism of religion.

Saudi Arabia treats blasphemy as apostasy, which it claims is punishable by death.

Afghanistan has historically leveraged its blasphemy law to silence any opposition to public law, with life imprisonment or death as punishment. even sentencing students and journalists to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

The death penalty is their answer to enforce Islamic religion.

In Pakistan, too, anyone even indirectly insinuating an insult to the prophet Mohammed can be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

When countries endorse such punishments for blasphemy, it follows that millions upon millions of people are exposed to such raw-tortured thinking.

And, the intolerance spreads. This is an abuse of religion by all the political figures and the politics in intolerant countries, which then spreads and infects the minds of Muslim youth in other nations.

Is it any wonder how 3 middle class, college educated dentists could suddenly plan, attack & bomb England's rail-tunnels? These were men who did not grow-up in any of the Islamic motherlands.

They felt compelled to strike-out against innocent civilians in England
to show support for Islam. It was a terrible deadly attack for what?

Islam: A violent religion intolerant to all others.

Clearly, there can be no doubt about it!
Stableman



]]>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:28 PDT1282262548WikiLeaks, the site that offers a "public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public," I thought it was a cool idea. But now I'm wavering. In the references section of this article is a CNN story on how military documents released on Wikileaks could be endangering the lives of troops and foreign civilians. The story also expresses that the FBI will be involved in investigating the how the documents leaked.

Bottom line, some documents are sensitive, and therefore not shared, for a reason. The line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of what can be shared and what can't. A Hollywood story, that's one thing, but leaking on your country's military operation, that's quite different.

I haven't done any research yet on what options the government has in this situation regarding WikiLeaks. If it were in China, we know what the hell they would do.



Anyhow, this is America, where we perpetually must perform the balancing act on what's free speech and what isn't. But because this is America, it's also where we can say, affirmatively, that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, deserves an ASS WHIPPING ---


]]>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:06:26 PDT1280448386Sun, 30 May 2010 09:07:00 PDT1275235620
From http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?p=1829755
Published by OFF! Magazine, a zine produced by students at SUNY Binghamton and edited by Tim La Pietra.

Once upon a time, the captain and the mates of a ship grew so vain of their seamanship, so full of hubris and so impressed with themselves, that they went mad. They turned the ship north and sailed until they met with icebergs and dangerous floes, and they kept sailing north into more and more perilous waters, solely in order to give themselves opportunities to perform ever-more-brilliant feats of seamanship.

As the ship reached higher and higher latitudes, the passengers and crew became increasingly uncomfortable. They began quarreling among themselves and complaining of the conditions under which they lived.

"Shiver me timbers," said an able seaman, "if this ain’t the worst voyage I’ve ever been on. The deck is slick with ice; when I’m on lookout the wind cuts through me jacket like a knife; every time I reef the foresail I blamed-near freeze me fingers; and all I get for it is a miserable five shillings a month!"

"You think you have it bad!" said a lady passenger. "I can’t sleep at night for the cold. Ladies on this ship don’t get as many blankets as the men. It isn’t fair!"

A Mexican sailor chimed in: "¡Chingado! I’m only getting half the wages of the Anglo seamen. We need plenty of food to keep us warm in this climate, and I’m not getting my share; the Anglos get more. And the worst of it is that the mates always give me orders in English instead of Spanish."

"I have more reason to complain than anybody," said an American Indian sailor. "If the palefaces hadn’t robbed me of my ancestral lands, I wouldn’t even be on this ship, here among the icebergs and arctic winds. I would just be paddling a canoe on a nice, placid lake. I deserve compensation. At the very least, the captain should let me run a crap game so that I can make some money."

The bosun spoke up: "Yesterday the first mate called me a ‘fruit’ just because I suck cocks. I have a right to suck cocks without being called names for it!"

It’s not only humans who are mistreated on this ship," interjected an animal-lover among the passengers, her voice quivering with indignation. "Why, last week I saw the second mate kick the ship’s dog twice!"

One of the passengers was a college professor. Wringing his hands he exclaimed,

"All this is just awful! It’s immoral! It’s racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and exploitation of the working class! It’s discrimination! We must have social justice: Equal wages for the Mexican sailor, higher wages for all sailors, compensation for the Indian, equal blankets for the ladies, a guaranteed right to suck cocks, and no more kicking the dog!"

"Yes, yes!" shouted the passengers. "Aye-aye!" shouted the crew. "It’s discrimination! We have to demand our rights!"

The cabin boy cleared his throat.

"Ahem. You all have good reasons to complain. But it seems to me that what we really have to do is get this ship turned around and headed back south, because if we keep going north we’re sure to be wrecked sooner or later, and then your wages, your blankets, and your right to suck cocks won’t do you any good, because we’ll all drown."

But no one paid any attention to him, because he was only the cabin boy.

The captain and the mates, from their station on the poop deck, had been watching and listening. Now they smiled and winked at one another, and at a gesture from the captain the third mate came down from the poop deck, sauntered over to where the passengers and crew were gathered, and shouldered his way in amongst them. He put a very serious expression on his face and spoke thusly:

"We officers have to admit that some really inexcusable things have been happening on this ship. We hadn’t realized how bad the situation was until we heard your complaints. We are men of good will and want to do right by you. But – well – the captain is rather conservative and set in his ways, and may have to be prodded a bit before he’ll make any substantial changes. My personal opinion is that if you protest vigorously – but always peacefully and without violating any of the ship’s rules – you would shake the captain out of his inertia and force him to address the problems of which you so justly complain."

Having said this, the third mate headed back toward the poop deck. As he went, the passengers and crew called after him, "Moderate! Reformer! Goody-liberal! Captain’s stooge!" But they nevertheless did as he said. They gathered in a body before the poop deck, shouted insults at the officers, and demanded their rights: "I want higher wages and better working conditions," cried the able seaman. "Equal blankets for women," cried the lady passenger. "I want to receive my orders in Spanish," cried the Mexican sailor. "I want the right to run a crap game," cried the Indian sailor. "I don’t want to be called a fruit," cried the bosun. "No more kicking the dog," cried the animal lover. "Revolution now," cried the professor.

The captain and the mates huddled together and conferred for several minutes, winking, nodding and smiling at one another all the while. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and, with a great show of benevolence, announced that the able seaman’s wages would be raised to six shillings a month; the Mexican sailor’s wages would be raised to two-thirds the wages of an Anglo seaman, and the order to reef the foresail would be given in Spanish; lady passengers would receive one more blanket; the Indian sailor would be allowed to run a crap game on Saturday nights; the bosun wouldn’t be called a fruit as long as he kept his cocksucking strictly private; and the dog wouldn’t be kicked unless he did something really naughty, such as stealing food from the galley.

The passengers and crew celebrated these concessions as a great victory, but the next morning, they were again feeling dissatisfied.

"Six shillings a month is a pittance, and I still freeze me fingers when I reef the foresail," grumbled the able seaman. "I’m still not getting the same wages as the Anglos, or enough food for this climate," said the Mexican sailor. "We women still don’t have enough blankets to keep us warm," said the lady passenger. The other crewmen and passengers voiced similar complaints, and the professor egged them on.

When they were done, the cabin boy spoke up – louder this time so that the others could not easily ignore him:

"It’s really terrible that the dog gets kicked for stealing a bit of bread from the galley, and that women don’t have equal blankets, and that the able seaman gets his fingers frozen; and I don’t see why the bosun shouldn’t suck cocks if he wants to. But look how thick the icebergs are now, and how the wind blows harder and harder! We’ve got to turn this ship back toward the south, because if we keep going north we’ll be wrecked and drowned."

"Oh yes," said the bosun, "It’s just so awful that we keep heading north. But why should I have to keep cocksucking in the closet? Why should I be called a fruit? Ain’t I as good as everyone else?"

"Sailing north is terrible," said the lady passenger. "But don’t you see? That’s exactly why women need more blankets to keep them warm. I demand equal blankets for women now!"

"It’s quite true," said the professor, "that sailing to the north imposes great hardships on all of us. But changing course toward the south would be unrealistic. You can’t turn back the clock. We must find a mature way of dealing with the situation."

"Look," said the cabin boy, "If we let those four madmen up on the poop deck have their way, we’ll all be drowned. If we ever get the ship out of danger, then we can worry about working conditions, blankets for women, and the right to suck cocks. But first we’ve got to get this vessel turned around. If a few of us get together, make a plan, and show some courage, we can save ourselves. It wouldn’t take many of us – six or eight would do. We could charge the poop, chuck those lunatics overboard, and turn the ship to the south."

The professor elevated his nose and said sternly, "I don’t believe in violence. It’s immoral."

"It’s unethical ever to use violence," said the bosun.

"I’m terrified of violence," said the lady passenger.

The captain and the mates had been watching and listening all the while. At a signal from the captain, the third mate stepped down to the main deck. He went about among the passengers and crew, telling them that there were still many problems on the ship.

"We have made much progress," he said, "But much remains to be done. Working conditions for the able seaman are still hard, the Mexican still isn’t getting the same wages as the Anglos, the women still don’t have quite as many blankets as the men, the Indian’s Saturday-night crap game is a paltry compensation for his lost lands, it’s unfair to the bosun that he has to keep his cocksucking in the closet, and the dog still gets kicked at times.

"I think the captain needs to be prodded again. It would help if you all would put on another protest – as long as it remains nonviolent."

As the third mate walked back toward the stern, the passengers and the crew shouted insults after him, but they nevertheless did what he said and gathered in front of the poop deck for another protest. They ranted and raved and brandished their fists, and they even threw a rotten egg at the captain (which he skillfully dodged).

After hearing their complaints, the captain and the mates huddled for a conference, during which they winked and grinned broadly at one another. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and announced that the able seaman would be given gloves to keep his fingers warm, the Mexican sailor would receive wages equal to three-fourths the wages of an Anglo seaman, the women would receive yet another blanket, the Indian sailor could run a crap game on Saturday and Sunday nights, the bosun would be allowed to suck cocks publicly after dark, and no one could kick the dog without special permission from the captain.

The passengers and crew were ecstatic over this great revolutionary victory, but by the next morning they were again feeling dissatisfied and began grumbling about the same old hardships.

The cabin boy this time was getting angry.

"You damn fools!" he shouted. "Don’t you see what the captain and the mates are doing? They’re keeping you occupied with your trivial grievances about blankets and wages and the dog being kicked so that you won’t think about what is really wrong with this ship --– that it’s getting farther and farther to the north and we’re all going to be drowned. If just a few of you would come to your senses, get together, and charge the poop deck, we could turn this ship around and save ourselves. But all you do is whine about petty little issues like working conditions and crap games and the right to suck cocks."

The passengers and the crew were incensed.

"Petty!!" cried the Mexican, "Do you think it’s reasonable that I get only three-fourths the wages of an Anglo sailor? Is that petty?

"How can you call my grievance trivial? shouted the bosun. "Don’t you know how humiliating it is to be called a fruit?"

"Kicking the dog is not a ‘petty little issue!’" screamed the animal-lover. "It’s heartless, cruel, and brutal!"

"Alright then," answered the cabin boy. "These issues are not petty and trivial. Kicking the dog is cruel and brutal and it is humiliating to be called a fruit. But in comparison to our real problem – in comparison to the fact that the ship is still heading north – your grievances are petty and trivial, because if we don’t get this ship turned around soon, we’re all going to drown.

"Fascist!" said the professor.

"Counterrevolutionary!" said the lady passenger. And all of the passengers and crew chimed in one after another, calling the cabin boy a fascist and a counterrevolutionary. They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.

© Ted Kaczynski, 1999 ]]>Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:46 PDT1274548606THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

Two Different Versions....Two Different Morals
__________________________


OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a
fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..

Come winter, the ant is warm
and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he
dies out in the cold.


MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
__________________________

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool
and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.


Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press
conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.


CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to
provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a
video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody
cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house
where the news stations film the group singing, “We
shall overcome.” Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.


Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both
call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.


Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.


The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading
friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't
maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.


The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.


MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2010.
]]>Thu, 13 May 2010 16:01:26 PDT1273791686