’nuff said

June 26, 2013

 

wendy_davis

 

vote

November 6, 2012

 

 


 

Today I will vote for a man who will bring the troops home so young men stop coming home missing legs, arms, faces and life because they were defending foreign oil wells. Today I will vote for a man who will restore habeas corpus. Today I will vote for a man who will end the “war on drugs” that is such an abysmal failure going on 50% of the prison population today is non-violent offenders. Who…
will NOT mandate every American buy health insurance from corporations at triple rates because Wellpoint said that looks like an awesome plan and then wrote the bills to make it so. Who will not appoint Goldman Sachs heads of state to oversee banking regulations and will not appoint Monsanto officials to oversea food and health regulation. Who will not say “It’s complicated” every time a simple question is asked. Who is not backed by nuclear power to the extent he will be in Chile pimping solar power while Fukushima is melting because, hey, Exelon paid for the Chicago campaign. Today I will vote for the last man standing who might save this country. And 90% of my friends and family members and fellow Americans will not.

 

ndaa and obama’s crown

September 13, 2012

 

The president —

“Strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”

So that was a lie. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of Chris Hedges’ suit against Obama and NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], permanently blocking disputed provisions in the NDAA as unconstitutional. And Obama and friends immediately filed an appeal. Actually they filed some sort of appeal a while back, anticipating NDAA would be knocked down by the judge after her May stance which temporarily restrained the implementation of NDAA.

Here is the thing to think about. A US president is fighting tooth and nail for the legal right to throw US citizens into jail, for life, without charges or a trial.

What sick science fiction movie is this coming out of?

And why is anyone voting for a president who would want the power to or try to do that?

 


There is another guy, by the way, who was big on arresting citizens and throwing them into prisons without charges or trial. His name was Stalin.

 

where the art work comes from :
that is from donna corless

back to politics

August 29, 2012

 

 

I have been avoiding news and politics. One, I really hate politics, two, I am too emotionally involved in politics [yes, politics and me, it's like a bad boyfriend] — and three, I figured I did everything I could do for Ron Paul and now it was just a case of wait and see what happened at the Republican National Convention.

It wasn’t good.

Quoting a Minnesota Paul supporter, “They stole votes. They stole delegates. They refused to send buses for our delegates. [*Max note, when they did send buses, the buses got mysteriously lost for hours during important votes.] It’s a totalitarian process. This is not democracy.”

:::what happened at the republican national convention:::

 


 

So Ron Paul is out. He wasn’t even allowed to speak at the Republican convention unless he’d agree to have his speech written by the RNC and to publicly endorse Romney. [Bummer RNC. Ron Paul doesn't take dictation. Though his son does. Rand is one of yours I figure.]

That leaves one man standing who might bring the troops home, end the “war on drugs,” and start putting the Constitution back together: Gary Johnson.

 


 


I don’t know that much about Gary Johnson.
I know what his campaign site says. He’s pro due process, anti nation building, internet friendly and anti SOPA/CISPA/et al/censorship, anti “drug war” — those are all good. He is kind of anti Medicare medical care which is not so good, but if he stops the damn wars and deployments and nation building, I’ll trade off on that. I was willing to do that with Ron Paul. He seems to be more localized control of education, but I haven’t yet sussed out in what way to interpret that. Bottom line. Bring the troops home, end the war on drugs, reinstate the Constitution and protect the internet is a fucking moonshot beyond what Obama or Romney are talking about.

 


 

Johnson’s got a crap campaign. The site is weak, the mission statement’s unclear. And the site and campaign are hanging on by trying to tuck into Ron Paul’s coattails. Unfortunate. But then —

Independents always do have crap campaigns, crap websites — they don’t have big money, they don’t get on TV. Only Democrats and Republicans get on TV and then only Democrat and Republican candidates networks like or can’t ignore — and the networks all have dogs in the race. That’s why Ron Paul went on the Republican ticket, it was the only way to get on stage and be heard.

 


 

Johnson hasn’t been fighting for decades to do the things that matter most to me like Ron Paul has, bring the troops home, end the war on drugs, protect and defend the Constitution — and more recently, protect the internet. And I am distrustful of political promises from newer younger politicians. Why wouldn’t I be? Obama was lying through his teeth. But —

 


 

Gary Johnson’s nomination pick for VP is one of my personal heroes:

Judge Jim Gray.

Judge Gray has been fighting a long time to stop the war on drugs:

 

 

 


 

Votes more than likely won’t make any difference in this election. They haven’t for a while. Not while paper ballots are gone — or being dumped in Louisiana swamps or worse discounted for “chad” infractions” [seriously, chad infractions, Florida you so dick elections away, why?] and electronic voting machines rule the day and are manipulated with algorithms. Which everyone knows but no one is doing anything about.

 

 

And why would anyone do anything about that? The people in charge don’t want to do anything about boxes that can be manipulated. They are doing the manipulating.

 


 

There is no oversight on electronic voting machines. There are only a few companies, only one that programs, and it looks somewhat problematic how this all works. For example :::the landes report::: — you get that link because I am tired tonight, it’s hard to dig out the good links, and the fifty articles I have read on this that are stronger are buried beneath Google’s horrifying hundred page accruement of bad links so don’t get all excited it is not the New York Times, the New York Times, according to its editor, Arthur Brisbane, the New York Times doesn’t fact check any more [that would be "vigilante journalism --- according to Brisbane --- though when I was in school it was called just, um, you know, fucking journalism]. So now The New York Times just takes dictation from politicians. So think about your news sources. Maybe they aren’t as “legitimate” as you think.

But, anyway —

 


 

American citizens dutifully trudge to the polls and cast votes and the machines dutifully spit out a different result someone else programmed in. Someone’s benefitting from that. That someone is not the American people though. The American people keep thinking their votes count. I think that is called “cognitive dissonance.” But I will do it anyway. Better a cast vote that is manipulated than no cast vote at all. The only thing worse than being gagged by someone else is gagging yourself for them.

 


 

I know the arguments. The arguments will be fierce and ongoing and I will be besieged. “A vote for Johnson is a vote for [Obama/Romney, pick your "brand" candidate]!. Newsflash. One, I would rather throw away a vote than throw away my country. Two? Obama/Romney? They’re the same face on one politically corrupt machine taking this country to hell. And I’d rather be shot dead than vote for either one of them.

Take that to the bank that financed both of them.

 


where that art work comes from:
that is dovima with elephants by richard avedon

 

 

These guys —

On Twitter are talking about Sheryl Crow. She has a brain tumor. One of them says it is benign. Another guy really likes her music. Another says it’s not his thing but she’s better than most of the pop girl singers. They note she’s hot.

This is all especially funny to me because these are big brawny military guys. Usually they are talking about things like Mauser Broomhandles or what to do if your optics fail. Today they’re talking Sheryl Crow’s music and one of them is a fan. This is like Rambo suddenly launching into why he likes Disney movies.

I consider making popcorn.

They are also seriously not Democrats. I’m unsure whether they are Republican or Libertarian, but it is one or the other. Most likely Libertarian. This effects their reaction to hot chicks apparently —

 

Guy One: Isn’t she kinda liberal too?
Guy Two: Oh yeah, big time.
Guy One: Almost all the hot talented celebrity chicks are, its a shame.
Guy Two: Together we can turn them!

 

And people wonder why I love Twitter.

 

who knew?

June 6, 2012

 

When I wrote Excess Baggage —

In the original script, the father – who was a very bad father – was a currency trader. He traded globally. And if he wanted a currency to dip, he helped. By making people disappear or dead, if necessary, because that’s a pretty fast way to disrupt a currency. Disrupt chain of command — in whatever form it takes. He was a pretty cold guy in general, not just on the father platform.

I thought I was making that up at the time. It never would have occurred to me someone would actually do that. I was just looking for the broadest harshest way to make money trading and when I hit currency trading, I thought, that’s it, that’s the way to do it.

[That required a fuck load of research to pull off too because I’m not exactly currency trading wired and it is a damn shame none of that made it into the movie.]

Now I’m watching the world and getting, I wasn’t the first person to think that up. I was just the only person naive enough to think of it as fiction.

 

free julian assange

May 31, 2012

 

 


:::john pilger on assange case:::

 

 

rony 2012

May 28, 2012

 

 

 

 

There are issues in motion right now that I consider the most important political issues of our day and this election those are big factors in my filtering of candidates criteria:

•NDAA, the Patriot Act, TSA and all accompanying inroads against the rights of citizens in the US including the ongoing military police assault against Occupy Wall Street and peaceful protest.

•CISPA/SOPA/ACTA and all its bastard offshoots and clones.

•Wars, occupation, and military spending in the Middle East that are gutting this country and killing off the younger generation of soldiers either in the field or when they suicide either in the field or after returning home.

•The “war on drugs.” Which is contributing substantially and not in a good way to the militarization of police forces at home in conjunction with the “war on terror.”

As far as I am concerned, there are no more pressing issues right here, right now, in play in politics.

 


Ron Paul and I don’t see eye to eye on everything. Given other options, I’d want Dennis Kucinich. But there are no other options and Dennis Kucinich is not on the ballot and the next best choice is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul will pull us out of the wars, occupations, and nation building that are bleeding this country dry, not only of years to come of its gross national product, but of the lives of young soldiers dying daily not just from enemy fire, but suicide as a result of the damage done to them by these wars. And not two or three or five or fifteen years from now. NOW. He’ll un-write indefinite detention [NDAA] of American Citizens; He’ll kill the Patriot Act and unwarranted searches and wiretapping; He’ll dismantle the groping and ever reaching TSA; He’ll stop the ongoing police assault on peaceful protesters in the Occupy movement and the militarization of domestic police forces; He’ll end the insane war on drugs that has made the US the world leader in private [for profit] prisons and incarceration of citizens; And he’ll stop the ongoing and perpetual assault on a free and functioning internet that show up daily in the forms of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and more recently CISPA. Add to this he does not believe in the ongoing assault on whistle blowers and Bradley Manning might just see the sky again someday if Ron Paul is elected president and the ongoing world wide witch hunt for Julian Assange might stop. And, he’ll stop the drones. Which are killing civilians every day overseas, and coming to your neighborhood street corner any day soon if either Obama or Romney are voted into office.

That’s a lot of reasons to vote for Ron Paul.

 


People shove a lot of objections at me on the Ron Paul argument:

He’s a racist!

Um. Right. One number:

35,948

That’s the DAILY AVERAGE OF PEOPLE ARRESTED IN THE US EVERY DAY. It’s a fucking huge number. The majority of those arrests are for non-violent drug crimes. And the majority of them, poor or of color, will go on to join the vast, near-voiceless crowd of 2.3 million incarcerated Americans. And what will most of them have in common? They will be poor people of color. So don’t talk to me about racism. The one presidential candidate who is trying to take Black America off the prison block, which appears to have replaced the slave block, may have a few personal foibles about whom he wants to invite over for Thanksgiving dinner, but he’s trying to do something that will be of more value to the communities of color in this country than any other candidate is. He’s trying to end the drug war. Which is not incarcerating White America. It is incarcerating Black America.

 


Then there is the abortion issue. Ron Paul doesn’t like abortion! Okay. So what? He’s the president. That is the executive branch, not the legistlative or judiciary branch.

[For fuck's sake, learn your branches!]

The president doesn’t get to outlaw abortion. He doesn’t get to outlaw anything. All he can do is veto laws coming through he does not approve of, or, suggest lawmakers make laws he might like to see, or, in some cases, really strong arm his party to create laws. But he doesn’t make laws. Ever. Because. He’s not the branch of government that makes Law.

I think Obama was kind of counting on the public citizenry getting this when he just sat there doing nothing during the whole health care thing. Or at least his handlers were. But at this point, everyone is so used to treating the president like a king, I’m not sure the general public actually knows —

The President does not write laws.

Or —

Is not supposed to write laws.

There were those Executive Orders Bush kept writing that “Candidate Obama” railed against, and “President Obama” has gone catnip happy for. These things go up every day, in triplicate. Which would be humorous, looking back at Candidate Obama railing against Bush, if it were not so awful.

But, Hello, the president is not the law making branch of government. So those should not be happening in the first place.

 


Then there is the argument, but he gets to name new Supreme Court members. Yeah he does. I used to fall for that one too. Also, a little late for that, Bush WAS in office EIGHT YEARS. AHHH! But yes. Naming the Supreme Court peeps is major. Unless the Supreme Court and Federal Government are not in charge of EVERYTHING.

Maybe this is something you have been missing. The president can actually say, Hey, the Supreme Court doesn’t get to rule on this issue. [Didn't know that one did you? Any president since Roe vs. Wade could have killed Roe vs. Wade. All they had to do was say, This is not the purview of the the Supreme Court. They didn't though, did they? Think about that one if you voted for a president because you thought he was anti-abortion. He lied to you. He could have ended it any day. And he didn't.] This is, from a pro-choice perspective, actually the real danger of a Paul presidency. He does know how that works. He can nullify Roe vs. Wade. And, being one of the men in DC who actually knows how that all works? And being anti choice? He might do it.

However. He’s a constitutionalist. Every vote he makes is about whether the federal government should be imposing or overriding state law. He might overturn Roe vs. Wade. But he won’t walk storm troopers into any state that makes abortion legal.

As things stand now, if anyone on the federal level were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the establishment would.

This is what I think people often do not get about Paul. His stances on any issue are always, should this be federally imposed? Should the federal government be imposing this, and capable of taking this away, or should this be up to states, period? That’s his stance on civil rights, that’s his stance on abortion, if you give that right to the federal government, it can be taken away from all people at any time, if you hold it with the state, you have some input and ability to change it sans the National Guard and/or drones attacking.

And, if you think about it, it doesn’t matter if Roe vs. Wade is still hovering on the brink of extinction in federal court if your state makes it nearly or entirely impossible to obtain an abortion despite it being federally legal. [Which is happening in a load of states.] So maybe if we stop worrying about the federal government dictating this and start pushing on a state level for choice, you and I can make our states allow choice. [Also Ron Paul is the only candidate in the Republican primary debates who, during a discussion about this when the "ABORTION PILL!" came up in discussion said, "Well don't be stupid that is just birth control."]

Back to choice. Though it is kind of cool to have someone who will say, Don’t be stupid, that’s just birth control. [Yay for doctor candidates!]

Right now, apparently all it takes is one [more] Supreme Court judge to say no and the whole freaking country goes toes up on Roe vs. Wade. Though that might be a little optimistic, considering what else the Supreme Court, allegedly more balanced than it really was, has done recently. [Corporations are people, anyone?] In fact, if you leave something in the entire control of the federal government, that’s how it works. If the federal government goes the wrong way, and it has a lot, recently, everyone goes the wrong way. So. Which do you have more access to? Your federal government? Or your town and state? Who do you want dictating to you? That guy from South Carolina? [Sorry South Carolina but you guys have been sort of dicks recently.] Or the governor you can actually maybe talk to or put some pressure on?

 


Then there is gay marriage. “Ron Paul is against gay marriage!” Um, no he isn’t. He doesn’t want to do it himself. He isn’t entirely down with the concept. But what he doesn’t want to do is federally control or dictate it. He thinks states should make their own laws. The end, period. And the federal government should be as hands off in this and every matter as possible. You want to make gay marriage legal in South Carolina? Go fucking boot out the bozo in South Carolina who is against it. Wait, you don’t live in South Carolina? Then go boot out the guy messing with you in your own state and let South Carolina worry about itself and boot out its own guy. This will work, state by state, if you become active instead of waiting for the federal government to do things and then relying on compromise with [sorry, but you were dicks] South Carolina.

 


Another argument: Regulation. “Ron Paul will get rid of regulation and environmental protection agencies!” Um, well, in case you hadn’t noticed, Obama has Monsanto in charge of the FDA, Goldman Sachs in charge of banking regulation, Exelon is running nuclear regulation, BP and Haliburton and other oil entities are running oil drilling regulation, Wellpoint wrote the new health care bill, GE is in charge of job creation… do I have to keep going here or do you get the picture? The protection and regulation agencies, on top of costing the American tax payer a load of coin to operate because they keep growing and costing more, are already asylums being run by the inmates. They don’t regulate. They don’t protect. They have become antimatter agencies tearing down everything they are supposed to protect. Add to that, each industry that is allegedly being regulated, except it is being “regulated” by double agents it sent in? [Being paid and supported on the tax payer's dime.] Each of those industries is still getting seed fund cash from the government. Big oil gets incentive cash. Nuclear companies get seed money cash. Monsanto gets seed money cash. [That was not a pun on purpose.] We are paying tax payer cash into these companies to create the very things killing us, then paying them again in the form of regulatory agencies to stop themselves after we paid their start up fees and when their own executives and lobbyists are running regulatory agencies in order to ignore any wrong doing and while the heads of these companies are swapping in and out of the presidential cabinet to “advise” the president on how to keep it all going this way.

Which I call hell in a hand basket.

So yeah. As far as I am concerned? Tear those motherfuckers down. And then? Cut off their tax payer paid start up funds. And see how willing they are to build a new nuclear facility if it’s them, not the tax payers, who have to put out the 40 billion dollar fee to build the new facility. We’re paying to build EVERY nuclear plant. Under Paul? It’s all “real capital” baby, the government and taxpayers won’t pay your bills to build a new nuclear facility.

So. Want to stop new nuclear reactors being built? Maybe Paul is your guy. Because he won’t give nuclear companies tax cash to build the nuclear facilities. Or. You know. You could keep giving them that cash and then paying for regulatory agencies headed by their lobbyists to allegedly play watch dog while the hoses inside the nuclear facilities burn.

Your choice.

 


Have I addressed all objections?

Probably not.

But that is a pretty good start.

 


:::the continuing saga of the max adams texas republicans primary cheat sheet:::

 

 

bankrupting america

May 28, 2012

 

 

%d bloggers like this: