Ever since we started ignoring the advice of our first and arguably greatest president,
The right-and I don’t just mean the “Far Right”, but the Right in general-has taken to upholding and excusing the reign of the totalitarian thug Augusto Pinochet. He is not the first example, of course, prior to that, they lauded such luminaries of dictatorship as the Shah of Iran, and, yes, even Saddam Hussein. And this is just the beginning.
In Saddams case, this lead to the first Gulf War, and the subsequent massacres of Kurds and Shi’ites, with the aid of an arsenal that in all probability to at least a degree contained the marking “Made In America”.
The Left, for it’s part, isn’t much better, if at all. Though they are careful these days to avoid any appearrance of supporting such communist dictators as Castro, or Kim Jung Il, they do betray the remarkable appearrance of being far more open to negotiation with people of this stripe than they do for example-well, Pinochet, whom they almost universally deplore. In the meantime, they strive to maintain the illussion that in supporting the rights of Muslim radicals to fly on planes without being in the least bit distressed-as oppossed to, for example, all the rest of us-they are actually looking out for all of our “rights”.
As for our allies, for example
Still, the Left wishes that we would adopt a more European model, in at least some respects.
As for the Right,they would like to see the entire European social safety net discarded, and would obviously like to see the same thing happen to our own, eliminate all regulation, at least on the federal level, and institute a kind of free trade zone worldwide that would amount to what they call “laissez faire” economics.
Feudalism, in other words.
The Right sees Christmas as constantly under assault, and suddenly you get the impression they would have no problem at all if the government were to suddenly regulate the maner in which shoppers are greeted at Wal-Mart. Hey, why would that be such a stretch? They don’t seem to have a problem with the Ten Commandments being posted in schools, or in courthouses, or in public parks, at public expense, which is to say, at taxpayers expense.
They have no problem with the concept of school prayer, of “allowing” prayers to a Judeo-Christian deity, or with reading from the Bible, or for the teaching of Creationism under the guise of science. How the hell is it such a stretch to imagine a Wal-Mart greeter might one day be fined for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”?
By the same token, the Left wants to totally deny there is a problem, when there obviously is one. Come on, when it gets to the point in time that the ACLU is going around the country suing to force the removal of Christmas trees from public parks, or for the removal of the words “Christmas” from school calendars, and the banning of even non religion specific prayers at general school assemblies, there is a fucking problem
So, you want to prove to me there’s no problem? Fine. This season, and also at least once once during the next election, I want to hear every fucking Democratic politican say “Merry Christmas”. I don’t want them to add another fucking thing to it, or explain it or apologize for it afterward, and I don’t want to hear a fucking compaint about it from any motherfucker. Then, maybe I’ll believe there’s not a problem.
I also want to see manger scenes in public squares, provided they are temporary and erected and maintained at private expense. I want to go to my local school and see a fucking Christmas play and I want to hear Christmas carols sung during the motherfucker. I want to hear about this happenning all over the country, again, without one word of complaint from any motherfucker.
Well, unless it’s a shitty performance, but that’s a different matter.
AND LEAVE THE GODDAMNED MOTHERUFCKING CHRISTMAS TREES ALONE!!!!!FUCKING SCUM!!!!!!
You want to see the Left defend Christmas or any kind of Christmas symbol? Fine, here’s what you do. Hire a fucking male homosexual pedophile to play Santa Clause at a department store, and the minute he inevitably diddles some little boys pecker, I promise you the ACLU will be all aboard defending the bastard.
Otherwise, forget it. They will be too busy insuring the rights of Muslims to cram the Qu’ran down our throats to worry about a little thing like some kids rights to put on Christmas pageants in school.
All of these problems, and more, are the direct result of
One, avoid foreign entanglements.
Two, avoid political factions.
The first problem is easily remedied. You simpy declare null and void any treaty with any nation that has deviated from it’s signatory obligations in any way, shape, or form, in the slightest way. From there, you return to a policy of bi-lateral trade and diplomacy.
Sure, it would be hard, sure it would be an adjustment, but the long term consequences are going to, I promise you, be a hell of a lot worse.
The second is not so easily remedied. The first amendment probably precludes outlawing all political parties, which is very, very, very unfortunate. The only other option would be to criminally charge and imprison any politican or organization that tells even the slightest provable lie during the course of a campaign.
The next step is even more unikely, and that is, outlaw all political contributions and political campaigns. You do this simply by having all candidates for office put out a comprehensive set of positon papers which would be availiable to all who want to read them. Maybe a publicly funded series of speeches and a nationally televised debate, or two, or three, and you know all you need to know about these bastards. Anything else they say or do would be, and is, superfluous.
Finaly, enforce the Bill of Rights to a dictatorial degree. Why not? We enforce the thirteenth amendment in that way, don’t we? When is the last time you ever heard of somebody owning a black slave? If somebody tried that, they are going to prison, I promise you, because they are breaking the law as set forth in the thriteenth amendmant to our constitution.
So, if that is the case, if you want to start some crap about denying my right to bear arms, or force your fucking religion down my throat while not allowing me the right to practice mine, or interfere in my rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, why the hell should your skanky ass be walking around free and breathing my fucking air?
I know of course my advice is not going to be heeded. Nobody listened to
And so, we are doomed. Enjoy the corrupt, pretentous nonsense while it lasts.
6 comments:
So this is the new Blogger??
Yep, sure enough. There's a lot you can do with it that I haven't got up the nerve to do yet, but I guess I will, eventually, one of these days.
The warnings about 'factions' were pretty common in Washington's time. Many of the French revolutionaries were downright paranoid about factionalism. A big part of the idea of the 'general will' was the idea that you have to protect society from factions or individuals that will lead the people astray, or convince them to act in ways that are antithetical to their best interests. Of course, they didn't really suspect that people can, of their own volition, choose to go against their own best interests, or that they can willingly mislead themselves. The sort of militantly stupid people you talk about are proof that this is a big problem as well.
Rufus-exactly. And that's what factions, or parties, do, acquire power by manipulating public sentiment or animosity. The country works as well as it does despite their influence, not because of it.
If the country wasn't set up so well, in ways the parties haven't been able to fuck up-for example, seperation of powers, and the Bill of Rights-we would already have had at least two more civil wars. We might by now be in the middle of one.
the Right in general-has taken to upholding and excusing the reign of the totalitarian thug Augusto Pinochet.
I guess you're refering to people like me. So let me explain:
There is a huge difference between DEFENDING someone (I never defended anybody in my life, not even Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi) and ACCUSING people of lacking ANY NOTIONS OF OBJECTIVITY in OBSESSING about Pinochet while COMPLETELY IGNORING dictators who have killed TEN TIMES, A HUNDRED TIMES and sometimes TEN THOUSAND TIMES more people than Pinochet (more than 30 million Chinese were killed under Mao's rule, as opposed to 3,000 under Pinochet - 10 000 times more!!!!!...)
What's so fucking special about Pinochet's victims? What do they have that's SO SPECIAL compared to Chinese people brutally executed during the Cultural Revolution, or Ukrainian kulaks who starved to death under Stalin, or Cambodians whose skulls were found in Pol Pot's killing fields. It's so fucking UNFAIR it is driving me nuts!!! This selective compassion for specially selected victims needs to be denounced over and over again and I will never stop!!!!
Okay, so if I want to go out and imprison, torture, and murder somebody, what the hell? Can I do just one, Sonia? I promise I won't do no more than, say, ten at the most.
Now, doesn't that make me a better guy than Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc?
How about instead we just agree that a brutal thug, a dictatorial tyrant, is a blight on humanity, whether he or she is from the "left" or the "right".
I've noticed this from a lot of people,I wasn't picking on you, or any one person. But I can predict what a person will excuse, and from whom, based on how they view themelves politically.
People on the "right" will excuse Pinochet's excesses, people on the left will excuse Castro, or idolize Che', etc. It's just wrong. No matter who does it, or why.
As for what is so special about Pinochet's victims, I wouldn't know the answer to that, you need to ask their families that question.
Post a Comment