2011/03/09 - Rant

Greed is good

is it? good for who? everyone? really? what if everyone suddenly were wealthy? who would work? who would just live off the wealth? it is obvious the economy as it is would just stop if that were the situation. so it prompts me to ask: why is the nation's economy and incentive program geared toward the wealthy rather than the working class? the nation should have a disincentive to hoard wealth and should give true and direct incentive to live the other way. greed is not that great.

2011/03/08 - Rant

if youre not open minded stop reading NOW...

seriously, what is the point of marriage? and I mean SERIOUSLY? finish this sentence. it is imperative that the nations of the world legally recognize matrimonial marriage (because / to / for) ...

procreation?
   what? you cant fuck without a ring, cake and a contract?

clearly we can agree that procreation is not about marriage; or the inverse. 

marriage (specifically the tax loophole) is a financial incentive to grow population. the world has more than enough people. women, historically, have been homemakers. they have also been the gestation engines of the human race. of course they are the mothers of the future generations but in all honesty if there were no children you would still live out your own life, with your own thoughts and your own experiences; would you not? having a child is only to satisfy a biological craving. this is not a "need"; it is an earthly want. babies do not come from a magical either-world they are the biological soup of sperm and ova provided from the DNA donors. this is usually what results from extracurricular, pleasure sex.

women, historically, have also been prevented from engaging in all of: education, ownership, record-keeping (history), commerce, ...all manner of professions not related to human-livestock.
that being the case, women were in fact considered less than second class humans, they were considered property, human breeding livestock and chattel. regarding that inequality some men were probably not monsters. so they probably did not require their women to live in abject poverty while they gestated the children. but they still probably kept in mind the general financial cost to bared child ratio. naturally you just cant ... a woman who doesent put out a decent amount of children.

men want tax write-offs for their women livestock and the children that they bare. to that end they declared the women and children as financial burdens —a.k.a. dependents. these, so called, burdens were previously not document-able and exchangeable wealth; now they became a tax write-off. still, children are not a necessity; then, and even in this day and age they are optional. and like all other optional things there should not be a significant national endorsement of children.

so what would happen if children cost more money? what would happen if we stopped giving a tax incentive to have children? 

wealthy people would budget to have children. people who are not wealthy would have to budget to have children. those who cannot afford another person in their life would have to accept that as the way the world is. resources are not unlimited; endless exponential growth is not sustainable. if they want children they need to find the resources to make that a reality or they have children in the face of no financial incentive and go broke. this is not class warfare. I do not promote a desire for the wealthy to 'feel the joy' of child rearing. children are not a toy and they are not there for your entertainment, they exist to live their own lives regardless of what you desire. it is just eliminating an unreasonable tax incentive to increase population.

what about accidental births? 

what accidental births? birth is not accidental. like I wrote before babies do not come from somewhere. they are grown in the sexual gestation organs of the female species. if a woman willfully ignores the fact that a human is growing inside her, it is her financial responsibility. she can sue the man for financial support, sure, its up to the court to decide that case.

what I am recommending is to just take away all financial (tax) birth incentives. nothing else. this is not a hyperbolic argument to anything else. marriage would have no legal or financial meaning. marriage would just be the arrangement among the consenting adults. women who desire to be wives become wives. men who desire to be husbands become husbands. no magical thing happens. women and children cease to be the property (or tax write-offs) of their husbands. 

and I hope that everyone recognizes: a lack of 'citizens' is not a lack of people.

corporate personhood

I think I can settle this debate once and for all (how modest of me /s). so many people for so many years have been arguing back and forth on behalf of human rights for corporations. why do we have to argue if these rights are human rights? can they not just be rights granted in mere legal terms on paper? human rights are unalienable. granted rights are just bargained legal terms. corporations only exist as bargained legal terms; humans exist regardless of legal jargon. clearly corporations are simple bargained rights, not unalienable rights —perhaps we can just call them rules. to call into question the personhood of a corporation is a slippery slope, a premeditated effort to twist, bypass or usurp logic that would otherwise limit wealth accumulation/hoarding. the goal is clear: the property —or tool— known as a corporation is designed to accumulate wealth for its owners. giving the owners more leverage —in every possible way. the most popular example in current media is corporations exercising freedom of speech (as if corporations distribute dialog not directly from the owners themselves or coerced employees afraid to lose their jobs). property cannot be used give a person's freedom of speech duplicity. the rule has always been: one person one vote. a corporation is not a stake holder; it is actually a stake to be held. their existence is that of property. a corporation is, by its very definition, property.
it can be bargained that property can own other property but is, in and of itself, always owned. the property owned by that corporation, by transitive rules, is owned within that same hierarchy of ownership; the roots always go back to some flesh and blood human (regardless how dead their soul is). in fact, nothing about a corporation can ever be free from ownership. in my opinion that is in antithesis of what a person is.

the deliberate purpose to gain corporate personhood is wealth accumulation/hoarding. if that is its stated goal then we have the rights as actual persons to deny that, bargained, granted "right". the purpose of gaining corporate personhood is not a matter of fighting persecution or some lofty social good that would be achieved; it is simple greed. anyone fighting for the rights to hoard excessive wealth should fight an uphill battle. that said, we have the right —I would say the obligation— to resist them.

I can use analogies of past slavery or current pet ownership but I feel these arguments hold up well on their own. I request constructive dialog on the matter. if there are holes in my logic, I welcome reasonable criticism.

2011/02/22 - Rant

people who sided themselves wit Egypt's Mubarak regime would normally also self identify as Tea Party Republicans. the people who sided with President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia also Republicans. the people who reject calls for democracy in all protests, all revolutions, are in essence sided with dictators. Tea Party Republicans side with dictatorships.

and now its happening in Libya. but why the sudden silence by the Tea Partiers? did they finally figure out how stupid they sound?

2011/02/20 - Rant

now I'm sick of this bullshit.
Wisconsin's authoritarian republicans are launching a fight against contract law. the law only affects people who sell their labor. based on their fucked up world-view, if you attempt to get a better contract by bargaining with other people, who also are selling their labor, it prevents that type on contract from being enforceable through the justice system. if you have money you are allowed to pool it in any way, in fact you can pool it in ways that defy reason, logic or math. in fact you can even pool and sell other peoples labor through temp agencies. but those same temporary workers will not be able to do the EXACT same thing on their own.

now where else are authoritarian republicans preventing contracts?

2010/02/16 - Rant

my brain is trying to wrap around a very troubling uneasiness since the Egyptian political deconstruction. I have a feeling that the jobs situation in the US right now is connected to that turmoil, moving from a slow boil to a rolling boil. the current labor union conflicts in Wisconsin illustrate little more than the hatred of any middle class job security: 1 - by the jealous poor who lack security in their own jobs, and 2 - by the greedy wealthy who would gain ever greater wealth by the middle class' slide into poverty and insecurity.

President Obama complains that he cant get things done. FDR hired people to just answer phones at the Whitehouse, for no good reason except a paycheck. just kept hiring people. for no good reason. dig a hole, now fill it back up again. Obama cannot force the Legislative branch to hire people but he can hire people through the executive branch. he is shirking the use of executive responsibility —even the use of Executive Order— to MAKE things happen if the legislative is deadlocked or is actively destructive to the interests of the Citizens. (yes, we know that the militia nutjobs will freak out and buy more guns. yes, we know the legislative will impeach him.) yes, we know ALL of their freak out symptoms. but they are already freaking out anyway, without even one significant effort on behalf of the progressives. the healthcare and credit reforms lost almost every progressive reform in the form of insulting "compromises".

watching Obama do next to nothing is making me ill. the stroke of his pen can create 10 million jobs in electrical windmill factories, mag-lev high speed rail infrastructure, solar-electric farms... even lame ass phone banks like the 1930s.

PNAC waited for a Pearl Harbor like event to ramp up the authoritarian conservative social engineering projects. and we are looking at a Great Depression like event to ramp up our new, New Deal. but instead we are being gutted like fish.

fuck. we still havent even rebuilt New Orleans! this shit is disturbing.

Ayn Rand fanboy project

if Atlas holds up the world, what holds up Atlas?
there is a reason that Atlas is, in the modern term, an absurd mythical being. Atlas is not a caricature of an honorable struggle. it is a representation of defeat and punishment. Atlas was sentenced to perform this task. he did not take the sky on his shoulders for good —let alone for profit. the absurdity multiplies exponentially when the fanboys attempt to convince you to want to be Atlas —or John Galt 3ʳᵈ earl of somesuch whats-his-face.

in all seriousness, the Ayn Rand fanboy project* wants to unleash the transnational aristocrats on us. they want to condemn each and every man, woman and child to a gladiator fight with the corporations —collective bargains of wealth— one on one, for all eternity. the snake-oil they are selling is that you, the middle class peons, can do it on your own if only the pesky government would just get out of the way (no mention of aristocratic billionaires).
when was the last time you actually negotiated a contract? not signed. negotiated. you listed out your terms and they were actually written into a contract. not since elementary school I'll bet. you all remember the my slave for a day contracts with your sister or brother. well, those werent very good terms back then and the terms offered by the billionaires now are not very good terms either. the result? you do not have the time, wealth or infrastructure it takes to protect yourself. not from being nickeled and dimed to death, and you are being nickeled and dimed to death right now. each arbitrary clause, binding arbitration, and ipso facto you find in every contract is not written there to help you; it is there to hurt† or rob from you. what the Ayn Rand fanboys are selling is myth. when land ownership and parceling began the free market ended (read Thomas Paine). you can not do it on your own unless you are a land owner. if you think a mortgage on a house on a 1/3 of an acre is "owning land" you are living in a fantasy world, a schizophrenic Ayn Rand themepark. you will watch your savings dwindle and peter away until you have nothing. you imagined through your life that you would build an empire to bequeath to your children. instead you end up in hospice alone, despised by the free-market fundies you once considered ideological allies. your children will grind out their own meager 9to5 existence among the wolves you helped feed.
that is Ayn Rand's version of success, just not your success.


* credit to Dennis G. —Balloon-Juice.com— February 12, 2011
† the greater your pain / fear the greater the wealth transfer from poor to rich.