September 30, 2012

A Disturbing View of Our System, Is it true?


I print the news that affect at least some of us. A community of gays. friends and families of gays. This is one of those times Im printing something bothersome that I don’t agree with. Why post it? Because many people see our government this way (described below). Indeed what is said below is not a lie. It’s all true! That is why 
I am posting it. But I don’t agree with it. Not agreeing with something that is the truth? Absolutely.

I will tell you why by giving you an example:  You take your date out to dinner. During dinner you start discussing how they killed the cow so you could eat the steak or the chicken to eat. Is it true? Yes Does it help in what you are trying to accomplish? You most be crazy!

 But the issue is not the process of watching sausage or hamburger meat being made or put together. Not pretty but true.  But the issue is the restaurant and the food system we have. Great restaurant out there in all price ranges. Things wrong with it, like abusing the animals, etc.? Yes             

The question ought to be, not the name or the process of our system of government and how it works, but how the government stays together in an unfriendly world yet with people that will give their lives to be here. Also keeping in mind that because of the statement below we need to always work to improve our system, so the most people are able to live productive lives to keep it going themselves keeping the system of government but going and improving it. Improving so we can recognize that change cannot happen in four years or eight for that matter. Change starts slow.  It takes decades and more. But we are a nation that want immediate results.  People running for office need to offer instant results. 

Usually a president gets two terms but the then the voters go the opposite way 
(exception FDR that brought the nation out from the stone age to the new automotive and factory system of the time..started SS and health insurance for when you retired or if  you became disabled). 
They elect the next President of opposite views. You promised. Not happening the way you said, so lets get someone opposite of you.  So we are always in the same hole. We elect a democrat President and a republican Congress. It’s like americans do not understand the job of the Presidency…which with the exception of the military, the president is a figure head. He can’t make laws and there are laws that will become so, even without his signature, even if he vetoes them. 

The very rich does not make jobs. What makes jobs is the people working to make what ever they working at, wether a car or a letter for the boss, making it work, making it good;, So there is a happy customer for the car and the boss is happy to keep you in that job. We also have to understand that in a society that is wanting to stay together(after a civil war in the 1800’s and insurrections in the 60’s) is a society that need to put out a helping hand to some and be able to give a helping hand to the ones that had it but lost it. No jumping off windows because of money. Save it for a fire you can’t escape. Now let me give you the opinion Ive been referring to.  (Adam Gonzalez, Publisher)

This is the statement  for which I gave such a long introduction:

"The reason anyone who dedicates himself or herself to getting Romney elected, as a means of protecting personal wealth from confiscation, will be sorely disappointed. Republicans as much as Democrats find ways to take what is yours.

And by the way, Obama thinks the same way. Obama will never convince voters who are already dedicated to Romney, and every single Obama adviser knows this. This is a fight for the remaining 5%. And what’s more, politics is business in another form. It is about giving and getting. Political parties represent interests, not ideas.
But oh, how precious is American political culture! We must not hear these things. We must never be permitted to hear what is true. Instead we have a Victorian sensibility about our civic religion. We sing the national anthem, say the pledge and reflect on 19th-century mythologies about our revered Founders, because, after all, we have the greatest system of government ever conceived, one so wonderful that it should be exported and imposed all over the world.
Or so we tell our youngsters. As adults, we should know the truth. Politics is a means of wealth redistribution. Electoral strategy is a race to the bottom. After all, it is emphatically not the case that Romney’s chosen constituents are free of dependency. Note that he is ramping up his imperial warmonger talk in recent days.
Every day, there is a new enemy that he accuses Obama of not slaying. And it’s not only about the military. It is about our trading partners. He has blasted the Obama administration for being soft on China.
What’s this about? It’s about reassuring his supportive pressure groups that he supports their interests. He will protect the American corporate class against foreign enemies who attempt to bypass the corporate oligarchs by selling cheap stuff to you and me. No, he won’t let that happen. And it is about reassuring the military-industrial complex that its subsidies will continue.
In fact, Romney represents a different class of dependents. Large banks. Financial institutions on the dole. Monied elites who live off cheap credit and infinite liquidity courtesy of the central bank.
Either way, the rest of us get looted. The election is about who controls that margin of loot that remains after the autopilot spending administered by the permanent class of bureaucrats is finished doling out its entitlements left and right.
In a way, I feel sorry for the bourgeoisie gathered in that small room to hear Romney’s talk. He wanted their money — a payment in exchange for his promise to protect their wealth from the grasping hoards. But he still wanted their money. Whether he will actually do this is another matter. And why should they have to pay at all?
There once was this idea called freedom. You keep what you earn. You don’t live off others. You mind your own business. Society works out its own problems without politicians, police, bureaucrats, and power elites running their lives.
Is what both Romney and Obama are doing a corruption of the idea of the political party? Ludwig von Mises, whose bookLiberalism (a Laissez Faire Club selection) explains everything you need to know about democracy, says that this is precisely why political parties were founded. “All modern political parties and all modern party ideologies originated as a reaction on the part of special group interests fighting for a privileged status against liberalism.”
The best statement on this topic was framed by Frederic Bastiat: “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” In his book, The Law, Bastiat explains that the purpose of law is precisely to prevent the mutual looting that goes by the name democracy. But once property rights are no longer secure, political elites can plunder with impunity.
That’s why no truly independent minded person can depend on any political machine to protect his or her interests. To keep our liberty and property from their clutches is our job."
Regards,
for The Daily Reckoning   

Gov Brown Signed Legislation Outlawing Ex-Gay Therapy on Youth


California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation barring state-
licensed therapists from using so-called ex-gay therapy on LGBT youth.
California state Sen. Ted Lieu introduced the bill with co-sponsors National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, Gaylesta, Mental Health America of Northern California, Lambda Legal and the Courage Campaign.
The legislation takes effect on Jan. 1, 2013.
Brown, in a statement in the San Francisco Chronicle, said, "This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
The San Francisco-based NCLR, in a news release on Sept. 30, described the legislation as “one of the most important bills NCLR has ever sponsored.”
The organization has provided legal support since 1993 to LGBT youth damaged by psychological abuse and mistreatment by mental health practitioners who told them and their parents that homosexuality was a illness, disease or disorder to be cured.
“We have seen firsthand the terrible, lasting damage caused by these deadly practices,” said NCLR executive director Kate Kendall. “This law provides a powerful tool to make sure that therapists who abuse LGBT youth can be held legally accountable.”
She added, “And just as important, it sends a powerful message of affirmation and support to LGBT youth and their families—telling them loud and clear that the state of California will not stand by while state-licensed therapists abuse their power to harm LGBT youth and propagate the deadly lie that sexual orientation is an illness or disorder that can be ‘cured.’
“Ex-gay” therapy is not advocated by any mainstream physicians or mental-health practitioners organization. But it is still practiced, mainly by therapists aligned with religious ministries that teach homosexuality is sinful.
Proponents of the legislation included the California Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (California Division), the National Association of Social Workers (CA Chapter), the California Latino Psychological Association, and the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies.
Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, said in a news release, "This is a historic day that protects LGBT youth from child abuse disguised as genuine therapy. We thank Gov. Brown for signing legislation that can serve as a model for similar bills across the nation."
With passage of Lieu’s bill in California, staff at TWO, NCLR and other LGBT civil rights advocates hope to launch campaigns in other states.
“We will not stop until LGBT youth are protected from these dangerous practices everywhere in the country,” said Kendall.
Written by WiG


 

More Cases of Booze Enemas } Don't They Know it’s The Wrong Road to Get you There?


J. Miles Cary  /  AP
The University of Tennessee Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity house in Knoxville, Tenn. on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Knoxville News Sentinel, J. Miles Cary, File on 2nd photo below)
By ERIK SCHELZIG
n
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Before an unruly Tennessee party ended with a student hospitalized for a dangerously high blood alcohol level, most people had probably never heard of alcohol enemas.
Thanks to the drunken exploits of a fraternity at the University of Tennessee, the bizarre way of getting drunk is giving parents, administrators and health care workers a new fear.
When Alexander "Xander" Broughton, 20, was delivered to the hospital after midnight on Sept. 22, his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.448 percent — nearly six times the intoxication that defines drunken driving in the state. Injuries to his rectum led hospital officials to fear he had been sodomized.
Police documents show that when an officer interviewed a fellow fraternity member about what happened, the student said the injuries had been caused by an alcohol enema.
"It is believed that members of the fraternity were utilizing rubber tubing inserted into their rectums as a conduit for alcohol," according to a police report.
While Broughton told police he remembered participating in a drinking game with fellow members of the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter, he denied having an alcohol enema. Police concluded otherwise from evidence they found at the frat house, including boxes of Franzia Sunset Blush wine.
"He also had no recollection of losing control of his bowels and defecating on himself," according to a university police report that includes photos of the mess left behind in the fraternity house after the party. 
Broughton did not respond to a cellphone message seeking comment on Friday.
The university responded with swift investigation and a decision Friday to shutter the fraternity until at least 2015. The national Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity organization also accepted the withdrawal of the campus charter.
Alcohol enemas have been the punch lines of YouTube videos, a stunt in a "Jackass" movie and a song by the punk band NOFX called "Party Enema." But Corey Slovis, chairman of department of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said actually going through with the deed can have severe consequences.
"It's something that offers no advantages, while at the same time risking someone's life," he said 
The procedure bypasses the stomach, accelerating the absorption rate, Slovis said. Pouring the alcohol through a funnel can increase the amount of alcohol consumed because it's hard to gauge how much is going in.
"When you're dumping it into your rectum, often via a funnel, one or two ounces seems like such a minuscule amount," he said. Ingesting more can create unconsciousness quite quickly, he explained.
The effects have been fatal in at least one case. An autopsy performed after the death of a 58-year-old Texas man in 2004 showed he had been given an enema with enough sherry to have a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. Negligent homicide charges were later dropped against his wife, who said she gave him the enema.

Students walking across campus this week generally responded with sighs and eye rolls when asked about the allegations.
"It's like a big joke," said Erica Davis, a freshman from Hendersonville. "Because who does that?"
Gordon Ray, a senior from Morristown, said the details of the case caught him off guard, but not the fact that fraternity members would be overdoing it with alcohol.
"It is definitely over the top," said Ray. "But it doesn't surprise me, I don't guess."
The harm the news has done to the university's national reputation was on the mind of several students.

   "If someone wants to be stupid, then they should do it where it won't affect anyone else," said Marlon Alessandra, freshman from Independence, Va.
James E. Lange, who coordinates alcohol and drug abuse prevention strategies at San Diego State University, said alcohol enemas aren't a common occurrence on campuses, though normal consumption still contributes to hundreds of student deaths annually. And many of those can be attributed to reckless attitudes about the consequences of heavy drinking, he said.
"It's not unusual to hear that students are drinking to get drunk," he said.
Lange said he hopes students don't draw the wrong lessons from the University of Tennessee incident.
"Students and people in general are pretty good at denying that they are at risk for whatever happened to someone else," he said. "So they can look at something like this and say 'I'm OK because I would never do that.’  

Previous adamfoxie* enema posting click here


Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now!

PAY PAL Finally Admits Technical Issues

  topnews.in Submitted by Mitra Pathak
  
PayPal acknowledged technical issueGlobal internet-based money transfer service, PayPal has acknowledged a technical flaw in its system that has resulted in holding up of some transactions for security checks.
A company spokesman said that the site has been facing "a few issues" since few weeks and this has affected a small portion of its customers. The company has made changed a system to speed up the process of transferring money from the user account to the customer's bank account.
The customers will now be able to transfer money from their PayPal to their bank account within hours instead of three working days earlier. However, the high volume of speedy transactions led to technical issue with the system and several transactions were held for security checks.
  
"We have had some technical issues which mean more transactions than usual are being reviewed for risk reasons," the company spokesman said in a statement.
He did not announce more details and only said that a minority of the customers were affected due to the issue. The spokesman also said that the core issue has been resolved and the company is now working to clear the reaming problem and will be completed within this week.

Little Britain Star David Williams it’s had Gay Experimentation as a Child

 David Walliams

 THE first rule of flogging a celebrity autobiography in the run-up to Christmas is make sure the book has a couple of juicy details that'll guarantee headlines.
David Walliams raises £1.1mn for charity after completing 140-mile Thames swimIt doesn't matter if the rest of the book is padded out with dull childhood memories of inane anecdotes about meeting such and such a star; people will buy the book for the one paragraph in which a dark, terrible secret is revealed.
A pun in the title will also help.
It's with this in mind that Little Britain star David Walliams has opened up about his sexuality in his book, Camp David: The Autobiography.
According to the Mail Online, Walliams says: "I had gay experiences as a child and remember being very confused about that."
"I'm glad I talked honestly about my childhood sexual awakening because I think there’s plenty of other people out there who will be reading it and say, 'That’s quite normal, that happened to me. It confused me too."
Walliams is unashamedly camp, but rumours about his sexuality have dogged him his whole career. His Little Britain co-star Matt Lucas is openly gay and many thought he was too.
His marriage to model Lara Stone was seen in some quarters as a joke but Walliams says this is because people confuse effeminacy with homosexuality.
"I've always been effeminate, and I think people confuse effeminacy with homosexuality, like they go hand-in-hand."


Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now!

Paris Hilton Seems To say ‘Forgive Me’(With this Rainbow) For My Profanities At You!

  Now after a huge backlash over her recent seemingly anti-gay comments, it seems Paris Hilton, 31, is trying to send a message to her critics by parading a colourful patterned bag. 
The blonde socialite was seen showing her support for the gay community by carrying a bag adorned with a Gay Pride Rainbow. 
Forgive me: Paris Hilton shows her support for the Gay community by carrying a bag adorned with a Gay Pride Rainbow
Forgive me: Paris Hilton shows her support for the Gay community by carrying a bag adorned with a Gay Pride Rainbow
The heiress was spotted with the bag while snuggling with her new beau, River Viperi, at the Maui Airport. 
She was finishing up her recent stay in Hawaii with River, a Calvin Klein Model 10 years her junior.
Earlier this month, the socialite was recorded discussing homosexuals, HIV, and gay social networking site Grindr with a friend during a cab journey in New York.
During the conversation, Hilton was heard saying, 'Gay guys are the horniest people in the word… Most of them probably have AIDS… I would be so scared if I was a gay guy… you’ll, like, die of AIDS.'
New love: The heiress was spotted with the bag while snuggling with her new beau, River Viperi, at the Maui Airport
New love: The heiress was spotted with the bag while snuggling with her new beau, River Viperi, at the Maui Airport
She issued an apology after the comments were made public, but the move didn’t stop chiefs at the Logo channel pulling 2007 show, 'Paris Hilton,Inc', which was set to air in the U.S twice this week. 
Bosses of gay-focused U.S TV network have shelved the documentary about Hilton following the star’s controversial comments about AIDS.
A representative for the channel said the documentary 'has been removed from the schedule.'
The TV show cancellation comes despite Hilton's apology for the remarks.
The former reality show starlet issued a statement GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) in which she took responsibility for her rant. 

Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now!

After Mitt What Sane Leader Saves The GOP? There is None

 After Mitt, Republicans will need a sane leader to drag them back to reality. Problem is, they don't do sane

 

Can anyone save the GOP?Michele Bachmann (Credit: AP/Jae C. Hong) salon.com
Could the Republican Party face an impossible Catch-22 when it comes to excising the crazy from their party? This is a party, after all, that has numerous candidates who are running for office on a platform of ending the direct election of senators. It’s a party whose most prominent voice in the media goes around calling women “sluts,” and one with a Senate candidate who talks nonsense about the biology of rape. Most notably, it’s a party with a presidential candidate who simply parrots back the party’s conventional wisdom (47 percent!) — and who sounds totally out of touch and not a little insulting to most voters. So what’s next?
Indeed, with Mitt Romney falling behind in the polls, there’s been a fair amount of speculation this week about the effects of a Romney loss on the Republican Party. The Hotline’s Reid Wilsonconcluded, for example, that “the fallout from a Romney loss has the potential to reverberate through the Republican Party for a decade” by pushing the GOP further and further away from moderate, voter-friendly positions.
It’s possible, but Wilson doesn’t mention the most obvious counterexample: George W. Bush. Should Barack Obama win, 2012 won’t look all that different than 1996, after all. A Democrat is elected president in the wake of a recession. Republicans storm back with a midterm landslide. The subsequent Republican Congress turns out to be terribly unpopular. The GOP nominates for president a “next in line” candidate whom movement conservatives neither love nor respect but who appears to be more electable than those they do get excited about. And then they lose anyway.
The result in 2000 wasn’t that they turned to a “real” conservative; instead, they went with Bush, who basically ran as a moderate — or at least a moderate who supported really, really big tax cuts. That’s the side of the equation that conservative writer Dan Larison emphasizes, and I think he has a good argument.

Could the Republican Party face an impossible Catch-22 when it comes to excising the crazy from their party? This is a party, after all, that has numerous candidates who are running for office on a platform of ending the direct election of senators. It’s a party whose most prominent voice in the media goes around calling women “sluts,” and one with a Senate candidate who talks nonsense about the biology of rape. Most notably, it’s a party with a presidential candidate who simply parrots back the party’s conventional wisdom (47 percent!) — and who sounds totally out of touch and not a little insulting to most voters. So what’s next?
Indeed, with Mitt Romney falling behind in the polls, there’s been a fair amount of speculation this week about the effects of a Romney loss on the Republican Party. The Hotline’s Reid Wilsonconcluded, for example, that “the fallout from a Romney loss has the potential to reverberate through the Republican Party for a decade” by pushing the GOP further and further away from moderate, voter-friendly positions.
It’s possible, but Wilson doesn’t mention the most obvious counterexample: George W. Bush. Should Barack Obama win, 2012 won’t look all that different than 1996, after all. A Democrat is elected president in the wake of a recession. Republicans storm back with a midterm landslide. The subsequent Republican Congress turns out to be terribly unpopular. The GOP nominates for president a “next in line” candidate whom movement conservatives neither love nor respect but who appears to be more electable than those they do get excited about. And then they lose anyway.
The result in 2000 wasn’t that they turned to a “real” conservative; instead, they went with Bush, who basically ran as a moderate — or at least a moderate who supported really, really big tax cuts. That’s the side of the equation that conservative writer Dan Larison emphasizes, and I think he has a good argument.
On the other hand, I might want to distinguish here between the short term and the long term. In the short term, there’s both logic in the idea that parties tend to grow more moderate the longer they are out of power and empirical evidence that it actually happens. Note that the biggest ideological outliers nominated in the last 60 years – Barry Goldwater, George McGovern and Ronald Reagan – were all selected by parties only four years removed from the White House. Parties in longer exiles, by contrast, have nominated relatively moderate figures such as Dwight Eisenhower, the 1968 version of Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the 2000 version of George W. Bush.
But does that seem likely of these Republicans? Many of us argue that there’s something really wrong with the current GOP. It’s not that it’s conservative; it’s that, well, to be blunt, it’s nuts. Or, to put it more gently, it’s that there are strong incentives for being dysfunctional, such as the profit motive for those who stand to make a lot of money from the party being out of office (when talk show ratings go up and wacky conspiracy theory books about Democratic presidents sell like hotcakes).
The result is a party more hospitable to, say, Sarah Palin than to Richard Lugar. And a party which takes presidential candidates such as Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain at least somewhat seriously. That is, it’s a party which frequently ignores reality and rejects the normal compromises of the U.S. political system. And every candidate the GOP nominates either shares in the crazy or is hostage to it – which is what we’ve seen from Mitt Romney throughout the campaign.
If all of that is true, then the question becomes how to fix it. It could happen, presumably, if party actors decide to reject it — or, at least, if enough do that they can win an internal struggle over it. But in my view, that scenario, while possible, is extremely unlikely.
Far more likely, I’d say, is a successful GOP president who considers it part of his or her job to bring the party back to reality by marginalizing the crazy – the obvious precedent would be Eisenhower (slowly, but eventually) helping to take down Joe McCarthy.
At which point, you might be saying: Catch-22. If the best bet is a president who will fight the crazy, but a president cannot be nominated without it, then how do you get from here to there? And, alas, I don’t really have an answer to that. Perhaps you get lucky and a president is elected within that system who manages to get popular enough in office to fight back against it. Perhaps two or three terms out of the White House gets GOP politicians desperate enough to seek out someone not beholden to those portions of the party and to fight hard to secure him or her the nomination. Perhaps another Ike comes along, although you could wait an awful long time for that.
Until that happens — until something happens to remove or at least moderate the real problems within the GOP — it’s pretty likely, it seems to me, that whatever they do in the presidential nomination process, the winner is going to be essentially held hostage to the crazy. And not only is that going to be a disadvantage in the general election, but if he or she does manage to win – and the electoral effects of extremism are not large enough to prevent that in many cases – it’s going to be difficult for such a candidate to govern successfully. And there’s no obvious way to get out of it.

Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now!

SEARCH This BLOG

Loading...

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him

ONE (Look for Green PREVIOUS PAGE)

ONE (Look for Green PREVIOUS PAGE)
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest