WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?
The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.
A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.
For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.
But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.
Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.
There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.
A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.
For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.
But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.
Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.
There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.
WHO PAYS THE BILLS?
Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.
That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.
Napoleon once said,
"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."
So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.
But wait!
Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.
That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.
Napoleon once said,
"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."
So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.
But wait!
Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.
HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!
WELL, it's a racket, all right.
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –
yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn't they?
They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –
yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn't they?
They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.
TO HELL WITH WAR!
I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
Money.
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.
So..."
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.
So...I say,
TO HELL WITH WAR!
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
Money.
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.
So..."
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.
So...I say,
TO HELL WITH WAR!
Where's the line?
This is a follow-up from yesterday's post...
A rather humorous, although likely fictitious exchange between a lady and Winston Churchhill is reported thusly:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
I saw a comment yesterday on Facebook about those who call Bush and Obama, Hitler. It indicated that while US Presidents past and present have made some incredibly dumb decisions, until they murder 6,000,000 people, based on their perceived inferior genes, you can't make the comparison.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I had this discussion with my Sunday School class on Sunday though. The thing with Hitler is that he didn't start out, wanting to rid the world of Jews and anyone he saw as inferior, or at least that's not what he told people, or they would have thrown him out on his rear for being a psychopath.
As a down on his luck painter, he started to frequent coffee bars, and realized that people were pretty worked up about the Jews. The more he spoke about them, the more people listened to him, and gradually it went from hate to the mass murder of millions of people. I suspect neither he nor any of those listening would have entertained thoughts of genocide when they started, but little by little they went down that road, until they had crossed the line.
But where is that magic line? When did he go from racist nut job at the corner cafe with political aspirations to maniacal leader intent on destroying anyone he didn't like?
It's like the old analogy of the frog in the hot water... If you heat the water slowly, at what point does the frog go from sitting in a warm bath, to being boiled?
When you're the frog sitting in the water it's hard to tell.
Finally, it was pointed out yesterday that my posts have only two themes... The LDS Church is bad and horrible, and Obama is perfect and can do no wrong. Which I think is a rather simplistic view of what I've been posting on, but I guess I can see why a person might think that.
First of all... Up until a couple of years ago, I lived in a magical world where the LDS Church I associated with was perfect. Leaders received revelation directly from God, we had the truth in it's entirelty, and one day we would live with God again.
And then I had a series of experiences, some of which I've shared, many of which I haven't which made me realize that a fairly significant portion of what I had been led to believe was true, was a complete fabrication. Much of the good remained, but there was a whole other side to the organization which was intentionally hidden from the membership. This blog became a place for me to vent about some of that. As of right now, in the last two years, I have yet to find out any new facts that make the organization look better than it was prior to those experiences. From exorbitant compensation for leaders to a history of racism, murder, rape and infidelity, all of which has been systematically and intentionally hidden and covered up, everything I've discovered has been negative.
If I have mis-represented any of that, I welcome feedback. If I'm right in what I have found, and you don't like it, perhaps a little more time reading the propaganda they publish, and less time reading this blog would make your life a little happier. I have never claimed to be pro-LDS, but I have claimed to try and represent the truth. After 30 years of brain-washing and lies though, I think I have some reason to be a little pissed off though.
And finally on my political standings... I voted for Barack Obama for president last year. I don't think he is perfect, but I think he was a vastly superior choice to John McCain, and his VP from Alaska. In some ways I feel a little bad for Ms. Palin, because I feel she's been used by the establishment to try and pander to a certain demographic, but at the same time... Come On Sarah!!!
The election was going to result in wasted tax-payer money either way. I saw the choice as... Do I want the government to waste the money blowing up fellow human beings in the middle east, or do I want them to spend it on welfare programs...
Not exactly a difficult choice from where I stood.
Mr Obama has screwed up a couple of things, many of which I've called him out on. I think he dropped the ball when it came to Gitmo and the Don't Ask Don't tell policy in the military. I think he's allowed the debate on health-care to be controlled by those who are in the pocket of the medical industry, the very thing he campaigned about being the problem in Washington. We need some kind of reform, but it's been politicized, possibly beyond the point where a workable solution can be sort.
At the same time though, he walked into a crappy situation.
It was his predecessor, who was either an idiot and didn't have the balls to stand up to a VP who was over stepping his bounds, or he knowingly started wars to profit the defense industry or promote a religious agenda against Islam. I can't say for sure which.
It was his predecessor who cut taxes, creating a temporary boom in the economy, but then escalated government spending over 25% to assist in causing a global recession.
It was 2 of his predecessors, Clinton who signed the law, and Bush, who vetoed a proposed removal of the bill, which allowed insurance companies to further crush a weakened global economy.
The guy got served a big old plate of dog crap as his innaugral meal, and while he's made some mistakes, I tend to think that overall, he's done a pretty decent job of trying to get things fixed. Unfortunately the political climate in the country is such that thinking someone has done something well, apparently means you hate his opposition and are deeply in love with him.
I believe libertarianism is the best solution to our problems, but it's not a philosophy which is going to get voted into place anytime soon, and due to the way in which our culture has evolved is not feasible at this point.
Capitalism in the United States is failing. It's failing because the system has been perverted and corrupted. When CEO's are making billions while their companies fail and are bailed out with tax-payer money, I think that's a clear sign that the system is broken, and it's time for something else.
I don't Socialism is the answer to all the problems, but I do think it's viable and it's not the great plan of Satan - which has been the point of my pro-socialism posts. It works reasonably well in other countries, and I think it could work reasonably well here. The vast majority of American's believe this as well, or at least that was they indicated by their vote last year. The US is a democratic country, even if you may not agree with the voice of the majority of the people.
I'm not naive as to think it will solve all our problems, and it, like capitalism is definitely subject to corruption. The Socialist dream is one of an egalitarian society. Yes, if you're in love with money, and want more than everyone else, it's a bad idea - but that's the problem with any political philosophy - The love of money!
As always, if I have misrepresented the truth or made baseless claims, please feel free to correct me!
A rather humorous, although likely fictitious exchange between a lady and Winston Churchhill is reported thusly:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
I saw a comment yesterday on Facebook about those who call Bush and Obama, Hitler. It indicated that while US Presidents past and present have made some incredibly dumb decisions, until they murder 6,000,000 people, based on their perceived inferior genes, you can't make the comparison.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I had this discussion with my Sunday School class on Sunday though. The thing with Hitler is that he didn't start out, wanting to rid the world of Jews and anyone he saw as inferior, or at least that's not what he told people, or they would have thrown him out on his rear for being a psychopath.
As a down on his luck painter, he started to frequent coffee bars, and realized that people were pretty worked up about the Jews. The more he spoke about them, the more people listened to him, and gradually it went from hate to the mass murder of millions of people. I suspect neither he nor any of those listening would have entertained thoughts of genocide when they started, but little by little they went down that road, until they had crossed the line.
But where is that magic line? When did he go from racist nut job at the corner cafe with political aspirations to maniacal leader intent on destroying anyone he didn't like?
It's like the old analogy of the frog in the hot water... If you heat the water slowly, at what point does the frog go from sitting in a warm bath, to being boiled?
When you're the frog sitting in the water it's hard to tell.
Finally, it was pointed out yesterday that my posts have only two themes... The LDS Church is bad and horrible, and Obama is perfect and can do no wrong. Which I think is a rather simplistic view of what I've been posting on, but I guess I can see why a person might think that.
First of all... Up until a couple of years ago, I lived in a magical world where the LDS Church I associated with was perfect. Leaders received revelation directly from God, we had the truth in it's entirelty, and one day we would live with God again.
And then I had a series of experiences, some of which I've shared, many of which I haven't which made me realize that a fairly significant portion of what I had been led to believe was true, was a complete fabrication. Much of the good remained, but there was a whole other side to the organization which was intentionally hidden from the membership. This blog became a place for me to vent about some of that. As of right now, in the last two years, I have yet to find out any new facts that make the organization look better than it was prior to those experiences. From exorbitant compensation for leaders to a history of racism, murder, rape and infidelity, all of which has been systematically and intentionally hidden and covered up, everything I've discovered has been negative.
If I have mis-represented any of that, I welcome feedback. If I'm right in what I have found, and you don't like it, perhaps a little more time reading the propaganda they publish, and less time reading this blog would make your life a little happier. I have never claimed to be pro-LDS, but I have claimed to try and represent the truth. After 30 years of brain-washing and lies though, I think I have some reason to be a little pissed off though.
And finally on my political standings... I voted for Barack Obama for president last year. I don't think he is perfect, but I think he was a vastly superior choice to John McCain, and his VP from Alaska. In some ways I feel a little bad for Ms. Palin, because I feel she's been used by the establishment to try and pander to a certain demographic, but at the same time... Come On Sarah!!!
The election was going to result in wasted tax-payer money either way. I saw the choice as... Do I want the government to waste the money blowing up fellow human beings in the middle east, or do I want them to spend it on welfare programs...
Not exactly a difficult choice from where I stood.
Mr Obama has screwed up a couple of things, many of which I've called him out on. I think he dropped the ball when it came to Gitmo and the Don't Ask Don't tell policy in the military. I think he's allowed the debate on health-care to be controlled by those who are in the pocket of the medical industry, the very thing he campaigned about being the problem in Washington. We need some kind of reform, but it's been politicized, possibly beyond the point where a workable solution can be sort.
At the same time though, he walked into a crappy situation.
It was his predecessor, who was either an idiot and didn't have the balls to stand up to a VP who was over stepping his bounds, or he knowingly started wars to profit the defense industry or promote a religious agenda against Islam. I can't say for sure which.
It was his predecessor who cut taxes, creating a temporary boom in the economy, but then escalated government spending over 25% to assist in causing a global recession.
It was 2 of his predecessors, Clinton who signed the law, and Bush, who vetoed a proposed removal of the bill, which allowed insurance companies to further crush a weakened global economy.
The guy got served a big old plate of dog crap as his innaugral meal, and while he's made some mistakes, I tend to think that overall, he's done a pretty decent job of trying to get things fixed. Unfortunately the political climate in the country is such that thinking someone has done something well, apparently means you hate his opposition and are deeply in love with him.
I believe libertarianism is the best solution to our problems, but it's not a philosophy which is going to get voted into place anytime soon, and due to the way in which our culture has evolved is not feasible at this point.
Capitalism in the United States is failing. It's failing because the system has been perverted and corrupted. When CEO's are making billions while their companies fail and are bailed out with tax-payer money, I think that's a clear sign that the system is broken, and it's time for something else.
I don't Socialism is the answer to all the problems, but I do think it's viable and it's not the great plan of Satan - which has been the point of my pro-socialism posts. It works reasonably well in other countries, and I think it could work reasonably well here. The vast majority of American's believe this as well, or at least that was they indicated by their vote last year. The US is a democratic country, even if you may not agree with the voice of the majority of the people.
I'm not naive as to think it will solve all our problems, and it, like capitalism is definitely subject to corruption. The Socialist dream is one of an egalitarian society. Yes, if you're in love with money, and want more than everyone else, it's a bad idea - but that's the problem with any political philosophy - The love of money!
As always, if I have misrepresented the truth or made baseless claims, please feel free to correct me!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Irony
I've been wondering about this for a while now...
First, a little bit about me... When it comes to politics, I'm a little conflicted. I'm a registered Libertarian, but since attaining the right to vote, I've found myself more often than not, voting for and supporting candidates for the Democratic Party.
Living in Utah, in a predominantly Mormon community is interesting though. Mormons generally vote Republican. Somehow they have it in their minds that to vote otherwise is to promote the work of Satan. I've been called a traitor and a "wolf in sheeps" clothing in the past year, due to my choice of candidate in the 2008 presidential debate and my stance on Prop 8. With few exceptions Mormons intensely dislike the current US president, categorizing him as a Socialist (gasp!) and some of the more extreme members believing him to be a racist - which considering the LDS Churches history and beliefs with regard to race is laughable at best.
I was raised Mormon. One of the principles of Mormonism I was taught was that of the United Order, or the Law of Consecration. The idea is that basically, that at some point in the future, when Christ reign supreme on the earth, and everyone is forced to acknowledge that the Mormons are Gods chosen people, at that point, Christ and his 'one true Church' will control everything, and we can live this law. The law is basically that everything belongs to the Church, and each contributes his all, and is given accords to his means.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
You can read more about it, in an excellent post today by Mormon Heretic - here.
I just find it both ironic and mildly amusing that a Church which esteems a philosophy of total equality as the ultimate human experience, would get so worked up when they perceive that a black man might have the audacity to suggest such a thing....
First, a little bit about me... When it comes to politics, I'm a little conflicted. I'm a registered Libertarian, but since attaining the right to vote, I've found myself more often than not, voting for and supporting candidates for the Democratic Party.
Living in Utah, in a predominantly Mormon community is interesting though. Mormons generally vote Republican. Somehow they have it in their minds that to vote otherwise is to promote the work of Satan. I've been called a traitor and a "wolf in sheeps" clothing in the past year, due to my choice of candidate in the 2008 presidential debate and my stance on Prop 8. With few exceptions Mormons intensely dislike the current US president, categorizing him as a Socialist (gasp!) and some of the more extreme members believing him to be a racist - which considering the LDS Churches history and beliefs with regard to race is laughable at best.
I was raised Mormon. One of the principles of Mormonism I was taught was that of the United Order, or the Law of Consecration. The idea is that basically, that at some point in the future, when Christ reign supreme on the earth, and everyone is forced to acknowledge that the Mormons are Gods chosen people, at that point, Christ and his 'one true Church' will control everything, and we can live this law. The law is basically that everything belongs to the Church, and each contributes his all, and is given accords to his means.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
You can read more about it, in an excellent post today by Mormon Heretic - here.
I just find it both ironic and mildly amusing that a Church which esteems a philosophy of total equality as the ultimate human experience, would get so worked up when they perceive that a black man might have the audacity to suggest such a thing....
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Ultimate MLM Idea
Gentle reader, what I am about to share with you in the answer to the age of question of "How can I get rich quick?". I share this with you because I trust you to use this knowledge wisely. I would however ask that you not share this with those who lack any sense of integrity or are of weak moral character.
For those who don't know... the term MLM refers to a Multi-Level Marketing organization or scheme. Utah seems to have become a mecca for schemes such as these and so I feel as though I am somewhat of an expert on them. In an effort for full disclosure though, I do need to mention that while I have listened to many sales pitches and studied various organizations who utilize MLM strategies, I have never actually joined one. This despite as one sales rep so nicely put it, "Obviously, I just don't want to help people."
The problem I see with almost all MLM's is that they involve some kind of tangible product or service. The problem with tangible products or services is that fads get old, science can prove your claims to miracle drugs false and with anything tangible, people will eventually begin to see through it. Of course if you get into the market, make your millions and then close up shop, you'll still walk away with a decent chunk of change, but there is a better way!
So here are the Urban Koda tips for setting up a successful MLM.
1. Pick your product or service.
Remember this needs to be something which is not tangible or able to be proved or disproved by science. Some of the best schemes like this involve the after-life. Humans are naturally inquisitive about the unknown, perhaps motivated by a fear of it and they will flock to you in droves, if you can claim to know something they don't. And you have to know it. It's a sure knowledge or nothing in this game.
2. Set up your leadership structure.
This is a tricky one because in many respects, it will look like you are sharing power, but you'll need these people to handle the thousands who come flocking to you for answers. It's important however to make this structure as exclusive as possible. I would suggest limiting it to only one gender (preferably men, since their pride and arrogance, makes them less likely to leave a 'high' position.) Offer benefits to these men, but keep them very quiet. This is a good way to enhance number 1. They have to appear to the general populace as though they are excited about having the answers to the questions, not material goods.
3. Seize control over your sales force.
There are going to be some who see this idea, and think... Why can't I profit off a scheme like this? You need to find a way of dealing with these men quickly and violently. Character assassinations always work well.
For those who remain and want to seek profit within the lower ranks, you need to take control of their lives. Let them think they're free to leave or sell the products however they wish, but have that be only on illusion. Some excellent ways of doing this could be to institute the following:
Mandatory dietary guidelines
A dress code
A strict initiation ritual
Blood oaths and covenants
Don't share the entire idea with people at first either. Give them just enough to get them interested and then as they exhibit more loyalty, you can share more with them. The feeling of privilege and importance as they progress upwards will prevent them from questioning progressively more bizarre rules you come up with. You'll know you have it made when you can control minute details of their lives, like what brand of underwear they choose to wear. You laugh, but it can be done!
4. Purify the sales force
This is perhaps the easiest part. Tell your sales force that there are some among them, who are spies, or who do not want the organization to succeed. If the organization fails, no one gets the final prize. They'll take care of regulating each other themselves. You may have to discipline the occasional person, but as long as you do this publicly and with as much humiliation as possible, the rest will fall in line.
5. Money
Perhaps the biggest problem with a traditional MLM is that money gets shared amongst everyone in the scheme. This is perhaps my most brilliant idea yet (In my most humble of opinions). Tell them that the money is needed to expand the organization. The real reward for participation is the final prize - that intangible question which only you can answer. Set up a financial plan where everyone contributes a portion of their income, and have it all directed directly to you. Ka Ching!!!
6. Rewards
Now the people will be excited for a while, but in time they're going to want something in return. One of the things humans crave is to be needed. Set up groups out in the community and try to get everyone involved. Everyone needs to have a job they can do, that is essential to the operation of the local organization. Ultimately you want to keep them as busy as possible with running the organization, that they don't have time to actually consider the organization itself. You may need to give a little money back for a building or something, but you can use that as an opportunity to ask them to give more (Guilt works nicely here). Also at this point, you should have elevated the upper echelons of power to a point where you can use their presence as a reward as well. These men need to behave like Rock Stars, and the people will begin to treat them as such.
7. Expansion
Your base membership is going to yield some strong returns, but in the long run, the only way to get more money is to get others involved. Friends and families work well initially, but expand the ideas in 6, and have the members feel duty bound to recruit others. Guilt is going to be a huge motivator here. Use the peoples own fear of losing family and friends as motivation to share the idea. But instill in them the idea, that if the friends and family reject the idea, that they are seeking the destruction of the organization. You may run into some opposition while doing this, but you can handle that easily with my final point.
8. Opposition
Some one on the outside is going to figure out that you're little more than a snake oil salesman. Initially the character assassinations might work, but eventually the voices will grow louder. You need to convince your followers that anyone who says anything against the intangible product is seeking their destruction. Teach them to refuse to listen to anyone who contradicts the prize or against reading anything not authorized by you. That might sound weird to someone not inside the organization, but once you control every aspect of their lives, they'll see that as a reward.
If this doesn't work for you, perhaps you could consider religion as an option.
L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."
The benefit of starting a religion is that of course you don't have to worry about paying taxes, but the problem in the case of religion, is that you're messing with God, and you run the risk of falling foul of his strict blasphemy laws.
For those who don't know... the term MLM refers to a Multi-Level Marketing organization or scheme. Utah seems to have become a mecca for schemes such as these and so I feel as though I am somewhat of an expert on them. In an effort for full disclosure though, I do need to mention that while I have listened to many sales pitches and studied various organizations who utilize MLM strategies, I have never actually joined one. This despite as one sales rep so nicely put it, "Obviously, I just don't want to help people."
The problem I see with almost all MLM's is that they involve some kind of tangible product or service. The problem with tangible products or services is that fads get old, science can prove your claims to miracle drugs false and with anything tangible, people will eventually begin to see through it. Of course if you get into the market, make your millions and then close up shop, you'll still walk away with a decent chunk of change, but there is a better way!
So here are the Urban Koda tips for setting up a successful MLM.
1. Pick your product or service.
Remember this needs to be something which is not tangible or able to be proved or disproved by science. Some of the best schemes like this involve the after-life. Humans are naturally inquisitive about the unknown, perhaps motivated by a fear of it and they will flock to you in droves, if you can claim to know something they don't. And you have to know it. It's a sure knowledge or nothing in this game.
2. Set up your leadership structure.
This is a tricky one because in many respects, it will look like you are sharing power, but you'll need these people to handle the thousands who come flocking to you for answers. It's important however to make this structure as exclusive as possible. I would suggest limiting it to only one gender (preferably men, since their pride and arrogance, makes them less likely to leave a 'high' position.) Offer benefits to these men, but keep them very quiet. This is a good way to enhance number 1. They have to appear to the general populace as though they are excited about having the answers to the questions, not material goods.
3. Seize control over your sales force.
There are going to be some who see this idea, and think... Why can't I profit off a scheme like this? You need to find a way of dealing with these men quickly and violently. Character assassinations always work well.
For those who remain and want to seek profit within the lower ranks, you need to take control of their lives. Let them think they're free to leave or sell the products however they wish, but have that be only on illusion. Some excellent ways of doing this could be to institute the following:
Mandatory dietary guidelines
A dress code
A strict initiation ritual
Blood oaths and covenants
Don't share the entire idea with people at first either. Give them just enough to get them interested and then as they exhibit more loyalty, you can share more with them. The feeling of privilege and importance as they progress upwards will prevent them from questioning progressively more bizarre rules you come up with. You'll know you have it made when you can control minute details of their lives, like what brand of underwear they choose to wear. You laugh, but it can be done!
4. Purify the sales force
This is perhaps the easiest part. Tell your sales force that there are some among them, who are spies, or who do not want the organization to succeed. If the organization fails, no one gets the final prize. They'll take care of regulating each other themselves. You may have to discipline the occasional person, but as long as you do this publicly and with as much humiliation as possible, the rest will fall in line.
5. Money
Perhaps the biggest problem with a traditional MLM is that money gets shared amongst everyone in the scheme. This is perhaps my most brilliant idea yet (In my most humble of opinions). Tell them that the money is needed to expand the organization. The real reward for participation is the final prize - that intangible question which only you can answer. Set up a financial plan where everyone contributes a portion of their income, and have it all directed directly to you. Ka Ching!!!
6. Rewards
Now the people will be excited for a while, but in time they're going to want something in return. One of the things humans crave is to be needed. Set up groups out in the community and try to get everyone involved. Everyone needs to have a job they can do, that is essential to the operation of the local organization. Ultimately you want to keep them as busy as possible with running the organization, that they don't have time to actually consider the organization itself. You may need to give a little money back for a building or something, but you can use that as an opportunity to ask them to give more (Guilt works nicely here). Also at this point, you should have elevated the upper echelons of power to a point where you can use their presence as a reward as well. These men need to behave like Rock Stars, and the people will begin to treat them as such.
7. Expansion
Your base membership is going to yield some strong returns, but in the long run, the only way to get more money is to get others involved. Friends and families work well initially, but expand the ideas in 6, and have the members feel duty bound to recruit others. Guilt is going to be a huge motivator here. Use the peoples own fear of losing family and friends as motivation to share the idea. But instill in them the idea, that if the friends and family reject the idea, that they are seeking the destruction of the organization. You may run into some opposition while doing this, but you can handle that easily with my final point.
8. Opposition
Some one on the outside is going to figure out that you're little more than a snake oil salesman. Initially the character assassinations might work, but eventually the voices will grow louder. You need to convince your followers that anyone who says anything against the intangible product is seeking their destruction. Teach them to refuse to listen to anyone who contradicts the prize or against reading anything not authorized by you. That might sound weird to someone not inside the organization, but once you control every aspect of their lives, they'll see that as a reward.
If this doesn't work for you, perhaps you could consider religion as an option.
L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."
The benefit of starting a religion is that of course you don't have to worry about paying taxes, but the problem in the case of religion, is that you're messing with God, and you run the risk of falling foul of his strict blasphemy laws.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Too busy
I've been pretty busy of late, so busy in fact that I don't think I've actually watched TV in over 2 weeks.
Fortunately TJ Shelby obviously has - Check out his blog on the right hand side! I found this gem from the Daily Show over on his blog this morning.
I'm not going to offer comment at this point, other than to point out that there is nothing worse than a hypocrite.
Fortunately TJ Shelby obviously has - Check out his blog on the right hand side! I found this gem from the Daily Show over on his blog this morning.
I'm not going to offer comment at this point, other than to point out that there is nothing worse than a hypocrite.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Change
I'm not sure when the change happened, but from childhood, up until a few years ago, I'd see soldiers marching in formation and be filled with pride and a sense of awe...
Now all I feel is sorrow and regret at war, and the utter waste of human life which it brings.
Now all I feel is sorrow and regret at war, and the utter waste of human life which it brings.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Awkward!
Thinking it's time for something kinda funny, and although I would usually post something like this on my fitness blog, I think those here may get a kick out of it as well...
Check out the photo in this link
The guy on the right is one Dave Zabriskie. He's a Utah native and pro cyclist. He did really well in the Tour de France this year, and is racing as a solo rider in the Tour of Utah this week. He blew by me on Monday while I was out walking, and I can vouch for the fact that he is freakin' fast!!!
There is some controversy around this photo though, aside from the object of the dude on the lefts attention. DZNuts is a cycling product which was designed for Dave to protect the tender parts of the anatomy from the rigors of cycling. DZNuts - protection for Dave Zabriskie's Nuts - Ha ha ha!!
Anyway, the controversy is actually the fact that he race in his Garmin/Slipstream race kit, but then wore a different race kit for the awards (he finished 2nd in the prologue). He'll likely have to pay a $500 fine, but I think the advertising is worth it - I'm even wondering if I should try some DZNuts for the UK!
Check out the photo in this link
The guy on the right is one Dave Zabriskie. He's a Utah native and pro cyclist. He did really well in the Tour de France this year, and is racing as a solo rider in the Tour of Utah this week. He blew by me on Monday while I was out walking, and I can vouch for the fact that he is freakin' fast!!!
There is some controversy around this photo though, aside from the object of the dude on the lefts attention. DZNuts is a cycling product which was designed for Dave to protect the tender parts of the anatomy from the rigors of cycling. DZNuts - protection for Dave Zabriskie's Nuts - Ha ha ha!!
Anyway, the controversy is actually the fact that he race in his Garmin/Slipstream race kit, but then wore a different race kit for the awards (he finished 2nd in the prologue). He'll likely have to pay a $500 fine, but I think the advertising is worth it - I'm even wondering if I should try some DZNuts for the UK!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sieg Heil! said the Sheeple
I have to hand it to Sarah Palin, the Republican Leadership, and all the lobbyist for the Health Care industry... Absolutely brilliantly played!!
2 weeks ago, Sarah Palin comes out with a ridiculous statement about the Obama Death Panels.
When examining the bill, it would appear that her comment actually comes from two, very separate parts of the bill.
1. The new bill now allows reimbursement of expenses which may be incurred for a meeting between the doctor and a patient, and/or the patients family, related to end of life care. Not euthanasia or anything like that, but things like hospice care, nursing home care and how to set up a living will.
2. The new bill also addresses the need to medical care to be rationed.
The first one is pretty easy to understand. It's something which previously has not be reimbursable, and which I think would be very valuable indeed. When I get to the point where loved ones are needing significant nursing care, or facing a battle against terminal illness, I would like competent advise on how best to care for them and keep them most comfortable and well cared for.
The second one is a little more tricky.
First a personal experience... I used to be part of an Emergency Rescue Unit in New Zealand. Part of the training I went through was on how to deal with mass casualties. Here's the scenario... You come to a natural disaster or a multi car wreck. You are alone, or have minimal volunteers with you and are facing significantly more casualties than you can handle. How do you decide who to treat first? As I recall, we spend the better part of 4 hours discussing it. You need to evaluate likelihood of survival - can this person realistically be expected to pull through. Quality of life if they do survive, and many more possible scenarios. It was one of the hardest pieces of training to go through, and one I still think about it. In many ways, it's trying to decide, who can you best help to live, but at the same time, who are you going to have to allow to die.
Second, an article from the Salt Lake Tribune last week, about health-care rationing. Read it here.
The problem we face, is as we strive to make health care more accessible, by more people, decisions need to be made as to who most needs the help. I can understand why people would struggle with this idea, especially older people, who seemed to be the most outspoken about Ms. Palin's comments.
This posting isn't about rationing health care though...
After a huge kerfuffle was made about Palin's comments and how they exposed the evil of the new administration, good news came out right before the weekend. The senate committee responsible for this has scrapped the provisions from which arose Palin's 'Death Panel' allegations. You can read about that here
So basically, the rationing of health care, which might reasonably be expected to play a larger role in the life of Palin's parents or her handicapped son was completely ignored. Instead, we've managed to find a way to help our elderly people be less prepared for the future as they approach the end of their lives.
Score a win for the politicians and the health care industry, and a loss for our senior citizens!
And yet all the sheeple stand and say "Sieg Heil" to the quitting governor of Alaska.
2 weeks ago, Sarah Palin comes out with a ridiculous statement about the Obama Death Panels.
When examining the bill, it would appear that her comment actually comes from two, very separate parts of the bill.
1. The new bill now allows reimbursement of expenses which may be incurred for a meeting between the doctor and a patient, and/or the patients family, related to end of life care. Not euthanasia or anything like that, but things like hospice care, nursing home care and how to set up a living will.
2. The new bill also addresses the need to medical care to be rationed.
The first one is pretty easy to understand. It's something which previously has not be reimbursable, and which I think would be very valuable indeed. When I get to the point where loved ones are needing significant nursing care, or facing a battle against terminal illness, I would like competent advise on how best to care for them and keep them most comfortable and well cared for.
The second one is a little more tricky.
First a personal experience... I used to be part of an Emergency Rescue Unit in New Zealand. Part of the training I went through was on how to deal with mass casualties. Here's the scenario... You come to a natural disaster or a multi car wreck. You are alone, or have minimal volunteers with you and are facing significantly more casualties than you can handle. How do you decide who to treat first? As I recall, we spend the better part of 4 hours discussing it. You need to evaluate likelihood of survival - can this person realistically be expected to pull through. Quality of life if they do survive, and many more possible scenarios. It was one of the hardest pieces of training to go through, and one I still think about it. In many ways, it's trying to decide, who can you best help to live, but at the same time, who are you going to have to allow to die.
Second, an article from the Salt Lake Tribune last week, about health-care rationing. Read it here.
The problem we face, is as we strive to make health care more accessible, by more people, decisions need to be made as to who most needs the help. I can understand why people would struggle with this idea, especially older people, who seemed to be the most outspoken about Ms. Palin's comments.
This posting isn't about rationing health care though...
After a huge kerfuffle was made about Palin's comments and how they exposed the evil of the new administration, good news came out right before the weekend. The senate committee responsible for this has scrapped the provisions from which arose Palin's 'Death Panel' allegations. You can read about that here
So basically, the rationing of health care, which might reasonably be expected to play a larger role in the life of Palin's parents or her handicapped son was completely ignored. Instead, we've managed to find a way to help our elderly people be less prepared for the future as they approach the end of their lives.
Score a win for the politicians and the health care industry, and a loss for our senior citizens!
And yet all the sheeple stand and say "Sieg Heil" to the quitting governor of Alaska.
Monday, August 17, 2009
White Shirts and Multi-level Marketing
Please understand, this isn't a post directed at Mormonism - rather it's directed at a culture which has sprung up within Mormon communities, and while it would seem at odds with basic Mormon teachings, actually basic Christian teachings too, it gets embraced which some much vigor and enthusiasm as to make me sick...
Case 1:
I'm a facebook guy. I'm not an addict, but I like the program. I've made many great friends, caught up with countless others, and just like the way the thing works. So there I was right before lunch today, perusing the latest updates, when... We'll call her MZ for this example... MZ pops up in the Chat window.
First a little history on MZ... Just over a decade ago, I was a Mormon Missionary in Africa. MZ was as well. I wasn't a huge fan of her but she was OK. My companion (coz you have to go two by two), absolutely loathed her, but he and I got put in a position where we had to work with her closely and so he tried really hard to overcome that. A couple of months later, we played a wee prank on the lady missionaries - nothing bad, just something fun to remind us that we were normal people behind the badge.
Next thing I know, I get hauled down to Mission Presidents office and absolutely chewed out by the man. Turns out... A - My loving parents had absolutely screwed me over on a separate incident, although at the time I was unaware of this. B - My companion kind of had a thing going with MZ, which she initiated. I found out about A, only after I got done with my 2 years. I found out about B that night.
Apparently MZ had taken the prank seriously, and called the Mission President to confess everything, and narc on us at the same time. Me and the companion got sent to horrible areas and put on bikes, although in hindsight - the bike wasn't a bad place for me to be - but we got screwed for the remainder of our 2 year terms, but I digress.
Next time I speak to MZ, she's happily married and living in Arizona. She calls up out of the blue, and starts talking about her new business to my wife... Primerica. Every person I have ever had approach me about Primerica, starts with the long story of how broke they were, how much financial trouble they were, but Primerica save them. And now they want me to take financial advice from them... Sorry folks! I ain't buying. MZ was no exception, and when my wife explained my bad experiences with it, she dropped the conversation...
And then had her husband call and talk to me about my bad attitude towards the greatest thing in the world. 2 hours later I get him off the phone, still unconvinced and thoroughly annoyed. Turns out he was a huge porn addict as well (Nice good Mormon boy that he was!) He would watch it all night long, and then mentally and physically abuse her and their kids during the day. They're divorced now and she's remarried....
Which brings us to today...
MZ: hey Koda! What's up?
Koda: Not much! You?
MZ: just keeping busy!
I have a question for you ... mr marathon fitness runner! :):)
have you ever used the Access Bar?
First of all... I'm pretty open about the fact that I'm a triathlete. And I don't want to get all technical, but I run as part of that, I do marathons to train for triathlons, and you've mentioned marathon and runner in the same delightful nickname. My BS detector is starting to glow...
Access Bar... Why do I know that name...
Koda: Is that a sports bar? And my ignorance probably answers the question...
Oh wait... Is that the melaleuca one?
An acquaintance worked in there a year or two back, and got me a few samples to try...
MZ: lol, yeah it is Melaleuca .. you know about it?
OK Folks... LOL's in places they really shouldn't be make my ass twitch, and the BS Detector is now emitting a good solid glow.
Koda: They were still developing the wrappers I think.
Right now in prepping for IronMan, I'm almost exclusively on Hammer products....
Perpetuem and Heed
MZ: hmmm, well, they are AMAZING!!!!!!
not sure if you knew the science behind them, but it allows your body to access fat immediatly as soon as you rais your heart rate, instead of having to wait the normal 20-25 min. that it takes
it is all patented and scientifically proven of course
Of course it is!! Anything else you'd like to quote from the box of them in front of you? Perhaps I should add... They weren't bad tasting bars, but for $2 a bar, the only one's I'll be trying are free samples, and I generally only take liquids when I race - Note how she jumped right over my comment about Hammer Nutrition too...
Koda: I'm guessing you're a melaleuca distributer....
MZ: well, not really a distibuter, since I don't actually sell the products, just set up shopping accounts, but yes, I own my own business with them
I've been using the products for 13 years though
just started doing it as a business last year
I just met Dr. Wang, the scientist that did the research leading up to the develpment of the access bar
incredible man ... incredible research, and discovery
Do you know who Shalane Flannagan is?
not sure if I spelled her first name correctly
My kids try play the semantics game with me sometimes... They're learning it doesn't work...
Did you hit your sister in the arm?
No!
Why is she crying?
I don't know...
Are you the reason she's crying?
Maybe...
Did you touch her?
Kind of...
How did you touch her?
***Kid motions punching***
I asked if you hit her. Why did you lie to me?
I didn't lie, you asked if I hit her, but I punched her.
Kid usually ends up in his room for a long time after this one...
But back to MZ... There is a pause because a co-worker comes in to ask something...
Koda: Sorry - just chatting to a visitor
MZ: no problem
I was just asking if you know who Shalane Flannagan is... she is a silver medalist in long distance running ... anyhow, she swears by the access bar
Koda: YEah - Iwatched her run at the olympics - pretty awesome runner!
MZ: yeah, she is amazing
Koda: I'd better head out though on my lunch break. I'm pretty set on my nutrition for now, but I'll let you know if I want to try those Access bars out!
Thanks!
Freakin' HELL!! No contact for 6 or 7 years, and all you want to do is make a sale. If I could compare the whole sales thing to sex (And just so we know, if I was single and her and I were the last humans on earth... Still hell no!). In this interaction I guess I would have been the woman and her the man. First date, she comes to pick me up, walks right in the door, strips me naked and tried to have sex - no foreplay, nothing. Wouldn't work with sex - wouldn't work for a sale either.
And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
2 Nephi 28:8
Mormons love multi-level marketing. Utah is MLM central. It's all about get your friends to make you rich.
Case 2:
So... to escape MZ, I take a walk around City Creek Canyon... A mile or 2 into it, I come across 2 LDS Church employees. How can I tell? They're wearing long-sleeve white shirts, suit pants and have their suit jackets slung over their arms. It was 80 freaking degrees outside - so why dress like this? The LDS Church believes that it's employees are the most professional in the world, and so they need to look the part, hence if you leave the campus during business hours, you are to wear a suit - jacket and all - technically they should actually have had their jackets on, but I digress.
The problem is... The LDS Church pays their employees like utter crap (at least the lower level ones), treats them like crap, and if any of them have the audacity to try and excel, they get hauled into HR and asked to play solitaire at their desks for a couple of hours a day, because they're making their co-workers uncomfortable with their performance - True story, it happened to me!. But keep paying your tithing anyway - it's going to worthy causes ;-)
That's not my point today though... As I pass, one of the guys is complaining to the other...
Have you heard about Markham?
Apparently over at his office, the management have decided that they can wear colored shirts on Fridays.
And I guess Markham feels he needs to do this to fit in. (With a rather sarcastic and judgmental tone)
By this point they had passed me and where out of ear shot.
WTF!
The LDS Employee handbook used to state that white shirts were preferred, but light colored shirts were acceptable. But even back then, whenever someone wore a light blue, or light yellow shirt, the corridors buzzed after they walked by. I wonder if it's changed or if everyone just still assumes that means it's a white shirt or else...
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
St. Matthew 7:1
Although in fairness, the founder of Mormonism did update it to read...
Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.
JST Matthew 7:1-2
Apparently a righteous judgment is the one surrounding another man's choice of shirt color.
Case 1:
I'm a facebook guy. I'm not an addict, but I like the program. I've made many great friends, caught up with countless others, and just like the way the thing works. So there I was right before lunch today, perusing the latest updates, when... We'll call her MZ for this example... MZ pops up in the Chat window.
First a little history on MZ... Just over a decade ago, I was a Mormon Missionary in Africa. MZ was as well. I wasn't a huge fan of her but she was OK. My companion (coz you have to go two by two), absolutely loathed her, but he and I got put in a position where we had to work with her closely and so he tried really hard to overcome that. A couple of months later, we played a wee prank on the lady missionaries - nothing bad, just something fun to remind us that we were normal people behind the badge.
Next thing I know, I get hauled down to Mission Presidents office and absolutely chewed out by the man. Turns out... A - My loving parents had absolutely screwed me over on a separate incident, although at the time I was unaware of this. B - My companion kind of had a thing going with MZ, which she initiated. I found out about A, only after I got done with my 2 years. I found out about B that night.
Apparently MZ had taken the prank seriously, and called the Mission President to confess everything, and narc on us at the same time. Me and the companion got sent to horrible areas and put on bikes, although in hindsight - the bike wasn't a bad place for me to be - but we got screwed for the remainder of our 2 year terms, but I digress.
Next time I speak to MZ, she's happily married and living in Arizona. She calls up out of the blue, and starts talking about her new business to my wife... Primerica. Every person I have ever had approach me about Primerica, starts with the long story of how broke they were, how much financial trouble they were, but Primerica save them. And now they want me to take financial advice from them... Sorry folks! I ain't buying. MZ was no exception, and when my wife explained my bad experiences with it, she dropped the conversation...
And then had her husband call and talk to me about my bad attitude towards the greatest thing in the world. 2 hours later I get him off the phone, still unconvinced and thoroughly annoyed. Turns out he was a huge porn addict as well (Nice good Mormon boy that he was!) He would watch it all night long, and then mentally and physically abuse her and their kids during the day. They're divorced now and she's remarried....
Which brings us to today...
MZ: hey Koda! What's up?
Koda: Not much! You?
MZ: just keeping busy!
I have a question for you ... mr marathon fitness runner! :):)
have you ever used the Access Bar?
First of all... I'm pretty open about the fact that I'm a triathlete. And I don't want to get all technical, but I run as part of that, I do marathons to train for triathlons, and you've mentioned marathon and runner in the same delightful nickname. My BS detector is starting to glow...
Access Bar... Why do I know that name...
Koda: Is that a sports bar? And my ignorance probably answers the question...
Oh wait... Is that the melaleuca one?
An acquaintance worked in there a year or two back, and got me a few samples to try...
MZ: lol, yeah it is Melaleuca .. you know about it?
OK Folks... LOL's in places they really shouldn't be make my ass twitch, and the BS Detector is now emitting a good solid glow.
Koda: They were still developing the wrappers I think.
Right now in prepping for IronMan, I'm almost exclusively on Hammer products....
Perpetuem and Heed
MZ: hmmm, well, they are AMAZING!!!!!!
not sure if you knew the science behind them, but it allows your body to access fat immediatly as soon as you rais your heart rate, instead of having to wait the normal 20-25 min. that it takes
it is all patented and scientifically proven of course
Of course it is!! Anything else you'd like to quote from the box of them in front of you? Perhaps I should add... They weren't bad tasting bars, but for $2 a bar, the only one's I'll be trying are free samples, and I generally only take liquids when I race - Note how she jumped right over my comment about Hammer Nutrition too...
Koda: I'm guessing you're a melaleuca distributer....
MZ: well, not really a distibuter, since I don't actually sell the products, just set up shopping accounts, but yes, I own my own business with them
I've been using the products for 13 years though
just started doing it as a business last year
I just met Dr. Wang, the scientist that did the research leading up to the develpment of the access bar
incredible man ... incredible research, and discovery
Do you know who Shalane Flannagan is?
not sure if I spelled her first name correctly
My kids try play the semantics game with me sometimes... They're learning it doesn't work...
Did you hit your sister in the arm?
No!
Why is she crying?
I don't know...
Are you the reason she's crying?
Maybe...
Did you touch her?
Kind of...
How did you touch her?
***Kid motions punching***
I asked if you hit her. Why did you lie to me?
I didn't lie, you asked if I hit her, but I punched her.
Kid usually ends up in his room for a long time after this one...
But back to MZ... There is a pause because a co-worker comes in to ask something...
Koda: Sorry - just chatting to a visitor
MZ: no problem
I was just asking if you know who Shalane Flannagan is... she is a silver medalist in long distance running ... anyhow, she swears by the access bar
Koda: YEah - Iwatched her run at the olympics - pretty awesome runner!
MZ: yeah, she is amazing
Koda: I'd better head out though on my lunch break. I'm pretty set on my nutrition for now, but I'll let you know if I want to try those Access bars out!
Thanks!
Freakin' HELL!! No contact for 6 or 7 years, and all you want to do is make a sale. If I could compare the whole sales thing to sex (And just so we know, if I was single and her and I were the last humans on earth... Still hell no!). In this interaction I guess I would have been the woman and her the man. First date, she comes to pick me up, walks right in the door, strips me naked and tried to have sex - no foreplay, nothing. Wouldn't work with sex - wouldn't work for a sale either.
And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
2 Nephi 28:8
Mormons love multi-level marketing. Utah is MLM central. It's all about get your friends to make you rich.
Case 2:
So... to escape MZ, I take a walk around City Creek Canyon... A mile or 2 into it, I come across 2 LDS Church employees. How can I tell? They're wearing long-sleeve white shirts, suit pants and have their suit jackets slung over their arms. It was 80 freaking degrees outside - so why dress like this? The LDS Church believes that it's employees are the most professional in the world, and so they need to look the part, hence if you leave the campus during business hours, you are to wear a suit - jacket and all - technically they should actually have had their jackets on, but I digress.
The problem is... The LDS Church pays their employees like utter crap (at least the lower level ones), treats them like crap, and if any of them have the audacity to try and excel, they get hauled into HR and asked to play solitaire at their desks for a couple of hours a day, because they're making their co-workers uncomfortable with their performance - True story, it happened to me!. But keep paying your tithing anyway - it's going to worthy causes ;-)
That's not my point today though... As I pass, one of the guys is complaining to the other...
Have you heard about Markham?
Apparently over at his office, the management have decided that they can wear colored shirts on Fridays.
And I guess Markham feels he needs to do this to fit in. (With a rather sarcastic and judgmental tone)
By this point they had passed me and where out of ear shot.
WTF!
The LDS Employee handbook used to state that white shirts were preferred, but light colored shirts were acceptable. But even back then, whenever someone wore a light blue, or light yellow shirt, the corridors buzzed after they walked by. I wonder if it's changed or if everyone just still assumes that means it's a white shirt or else...
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
St. Matthew 7:1
Although in fairness, the founder of Mormonism did update it to read...
Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.
JST Matthew 7:1-2
Apparently a righteous judgment is the one surrounding another man's choice of shirt color.
Concerned about God...
I'm getting concerned about God...
Just read this story today... Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder. It would appear that the old mantra of "The devil made me do it!" have been replaced by, "God told me to do it."
And then there was the whole Iraqi debaucle, which was started because a couple of guys (allegedly) in Afghanistan got told by God to destroy the United States, and so then to mix is up a little bit, God told George Bush to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to bring peace to the region.
I'm starting to lean towards George Carlin's way of thinking...
But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f*cked up.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever f*ck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
I tend to think there is some kind of supreme being or entity out there, but I very much doubt that he's telling people to kill each other. Seems like it's just become a convenient excuse for being a bigot.
Just read this story today... Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder. It would appear that the old mantra of "The devil made me do it!" have been replaced by, "God told me to do it."
And then there was the whole Iraqi debaucle, which was started because a couple of guys (allegedly) in Afghanistan got told by God to destroy the United States, and so then to mix is up a little bit, God told George Bush to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to bring peace to the region.
I'm starting to lean towards George Carlin's way of thinking...
But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f*cked up.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever f*ck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
I tend to think there is some kind of supreme being or entity out there, but I very much doubt that he's telling people to kill each other. Seems like it's just become a convenient excuse for being a bigot.
5/12th's of an IronMan
It's been a long weekend... I'm planning on writing more, but, here's a teaser to whet your appetite...
Friday - hectic day, finally got ready to leave for Provo about 3 hours later than planned. Alternator in our van gave out halfway there, so wife and kids spent the night at grandma's and I got to spend a night alone in the hotel.
Saturday - My first half Iron Man Triathlon... Everything looked good until 2 minutes till the start when the wind started. Swim got postponed for almost an hour and then halved. Bike went ok, except for the wind - good going out, rough coming back. Run Rocked!!! As my brother said... With the shortened swim, I'm about 5/12ths of an IronMan now - but damn it... The 70.3 sticker is going on my Van TONIGHT!!
Sunday - Spent the morning fixing the alternator in the van. Spent the afternoon driving around Antelope Island (We needed an excuse to help the battery get recharged!!) and then toured the ranch out their too.
Those of you who live in Utah will appreciate this...
Nothing beats the feeling of being able to tour an historical location, and not get asked for referrals at the end of it!!!!!
Friday - hectic day, finally got ready to leave for Provo about 3 hours later than planned. Alternator in our van gave out halfway there, so wife and kids spent the night at grandma's and I got to spend a night alone in the hotel.
Saturday - My first half Iron Man Triathlon... Everything looked good until 2 minutes till the start when the wind started. Swim got postponed for almost an hour and then halved. Bike went ok, except for the wind - good going out, rough coming back. Run Rocked!!! As my brother said... With the shortened swim, I'm about 5/12ths of an IronMan now - but damn it... The 70.3 sticker is going on my Van TONIGHT!!
Sunday - Spent the morning fixing the alternator in the van. Spent the afternoon driving around Antelope Island (We needed an excuse to help the battery get recharged!!) and then toured the ranch out their too.
Those of you who live in Utah will appreciate this...
Nothing beats the feeling of being able to tour an historical location, and not get asked for referrals at the end of it!!!!!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I'm not a gun nut, but...
I've think I've mentioned before a gentleman that I did some business with a few years ago that likes to send around the ultra conservative Republican emails. I haven't received one from him in a while, and I've suspected it was because most of his "Obama is a muslim extremist" emails got a snopes link in response from me.
Apparently it worked, since I got an email from him this morning and right up top was the line....
Confirmed on snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
I've made known my stance on Gay Marriage, the need for Health Care reform, several other issues, so I probably need to weigh in on this one.
The second amendment of the United States states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm not a gun owner, at least not yet. I was however privileged enough to fire a Rock River assault rifle over the weekend, and I'm lusting after one for myself ever since. Ain't she a beauty?
I also understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. People seem to get fixated of 1 of the first 2 amendments, but I think they both need each other in order to work.
The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
OK, but back to the topic of gun control...
I think that the right to keep and bear arms is critical to the defense of freedom, not necessarily from foreign invader but from those within the country who would seek to take it away.
There is a very real problem with gun violence though, which needs to be addressed.
The problem is:
If you control who can own a gun, those who honor the law, who have obtained a weapon legally, you're exercising control over a group of people who aren't likely to cause problems.
People who would use a firearm to commit a crime, aren't likely to obey the law in the first place, and wouldn't think twice about obtaining a weapon through illegal means.
I tried looking at the bill, but whoever coded the page did a crappy job and after error #247, I gave up trying to click through them all. If the email is right though, and snopes claims it is, the bill would require all guns to be registered and tightly controlled.
I don't think the men who proposed this bill are doing it with the intent to confiscate all firearms, but by passing that bill, it does open the opportunity for someone to launch a program like that in the future.
I would propose the following as an alternative method of gun control...
The US Legal System is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and I think it could be reasonably be applied here.
I would support the creation of a national database of those who have forfeited the right to bear arms through their own actions or circumstances that mean that could cause a real danger to themselves or others. Perpetrators of armed assaults, those with mental illness which could cause a situation when they could be a danger to themselves and others and the like. If you want to buy a gun, have the store owner run your name against the database, and if it comes up clean, you can buy the gun.
I also think that we need to educate people better. After firing a rifle this weekend, I'm 100% sure none of my kids will be going near any kind of firearm for the next couple of years.
I don't support the sale of fire-arms to minors, and would prefer that people take a class on firearm safety prior to purchasing - but I understand the problems in enforcing that.
So bottom line is...
I support the rights of the citizens of this country to own guns and I think this bill is a bad idea.
Apparently it worked, since I got an email from him this morning and right up top was the line....
Confirmed on snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
I've made known my stance on Gay Marriage, the need for Health Care reform, several other issues, so I probably need to weigh in on this one.
The second amendment of the United States states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm not a gun owner, at least not yet. I was however privileged enough to fire a Rock River assault rifle over the weekend, and I'm lusting after one for myself ever since. Ain't she a beauty?
I also understand the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. People seem to get fixated of 1 of the first 2 amendments, but I think they both need each other in order to work.
The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
OK, but back to the topic of gun control...
I think that the right to keep and bear arms is critical to the defense of freedom, not necessarily from foreign invader but from those within the country who would seek to take it away.
There is a very real problem with gun violence though, which needs to be addressed.
The problem is:
If you control who can own a gun, those who honor the law, who have obtained a weapon legally, you're exercising control over a group of people who aren't likely to cause problems.
People who would use a firearm to commit a crime, aren't likely to obey the law in the first place, and wouldn't think twice about obtaining a weapon through illegal means.
I tried looking at the bill, but whoever coded the page did a crappy job and after error #247, I gave up trying to click through them all. If the email is right though, and snopes claims it is, the bill would require all guns to be registered and tightly controlled.
I don't think the men who proposed this bill are doing it with the intent to confiscate all firearms, but by passing that bill, it does open the opportunity for someone to launch a program like that in the future.
I would propose the following as an alternative method of gun control...
The US Legal System is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and I think it could be reasonably be applied here.
I would support the creation of a national database of those who have forfeited the right to bear arms through their own actions or circumstances that mean that could cause a real danger to themselves or others. Perpetrators of armed assaults, those with mental illness which could cause a situation when they could be a danger to themselves and others and the like. If you want to buy a gun, have the store owner run your name against the database, and if it comes up clean, you can buy the gun.
I also think that we need to educate people better. After firing a rifle this weekend, I'm 100% sure none of my kids will be going near any kind of firearm for the next couple of years.
I don't support the sale of fire-arms to minors, and would prefer that people take a class on firearm safety prior to purchasing - but I understand the problems in enforcing that.
So bottom line is...
I support the rights of the citizens of this country to own guns and I think this bill is a bad idea.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Errata
And if I may make one more correction... I was researching a little more into Socialism and definitions surrounding that political system, and I discovered something interesting...
Apparently Socialism is more of an economic philosophy than a political one.
It would also seem that what I thought to be Socialism is actually a derivative of Socialism called Social Democracy. It seems to be a conglomerate of some of the pro's of Socialism, combined with the benefits of living in a Democracy, and therefore, avoiding the problem (hopefully) of a totalitarian government which then seeks to control all.
I definitely need to do more reading into this... But if you're interested, the wikipedia entry has some good stuff here.
Apparently Socialism is more of an economic philosophy than a political one.
It would also seem that what I thought to be Socialism is actually a derivative of Socialism called Social Democracy. It seems to be a conglomerate of some of the pro's of Socialism, combined with the benefits of living in a Democracy, and therefore, avoiding the problem (hopefully) of a totalitarian government which then seeks to control all.
I definitely need to do more reading into this... But if you're interested, the wikipedia entry has some good stuff here.
Turds...
I went on a camping trip to a ranch this weekend and in front of my wife and friends, told my son, "Don't be turd dude!"
He was whining about wanting to go and hang out in the trailer, which he and my daughter has already put into a complete state of disarray and broken the door handle off. He didn't want to hang around outside enjoying the fresh air, playing in the hay and with the dogs.
The word turd was on my mind after reading a favorite quote of a friend on FaceBook which read... "If you're going to be a turd, go lie on the lawn"
Anyway, my use of the word garnered much hilarity amongst the friends... My accent is mostly South African, with a hint of Kiwi, and some Utahn sprinkled in for good measure.
Apparently when I say Turd, it sounds very 'proper'.
But that's not the point of this post. Following some heated discussion with a reader following my last post, he pointed me toward an article. He also send me some Glenn Beck audio.
I should add that although this reader and I differ more often than not, and are both likely the cause for heads being banged against computer desks in in both our homes, it's always an informative debate and I don't think I've had a discussion with him where I haven't learned anything.
Let hit Glenn first.
Dammit Glenn! You're a funny guy and you have an excellent way of putting things. I think you could be a real influence for good on this country... That said though... Being a TURD and saying dumb stuff like I mentioned in the previous post make it really hard to listen to you. Even after I lost faith in Bush, the Republicans, Hannity and Rush, I still liked to listen to you everyday on the way home from work, but then it got to the point where every time I turned on, it was the end of the world, and the Apocalypse was coming and all of that crap. I suspect I may have had bad timing, and perhaps by turning on at the same time as I left work every day, I was just hitting right at the point in your show when you planned to do that stuff. I just couldn't listen to it, and still arrive home 30 minutes later, not wanting to find a cliff to drive off.
It's a great pity! Glenn you could be so much more. Get off the political stuff and come back to normal fun stuff. A little less gloom and doom and a little more 109.5 The Frog and Moron Trivia. I swear I'll come back if you do! I'll even subscribe to the newsletter that it took me 6 months to get unsubscribed from. Perhaps I'll even back order the 2007 copies of Fusion magazine which I put in the trash last week. A little more fusion between entertainment and enlightment and a little less bidding to your conservative masters.
Now lets hit the article. It made a lot of sense and pointed out some very real problems. If I may quote...
With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?
To all those TURDS in Washington... Seriously guys, what the hell is wrong with you.
The article is here. I would highly recommend it and a huge thanks to Mr. D. Sirmize for the find.
He was whining about wanting to go and hang out in the trailer, which he and my daughter has already put into a complete state of disarray and broken the door handle off. He didn't want to hang around outside enjoying the fresh air, playing in the hay and with the dogs.
The word turd was on my mind after reading a favorite quote of a friend on FaceBook which read... "If you're going to be a turd, go lie on the lawn"
Anyway, my use of the word garnered much hilarity amongst the friends... My accent is mostly South African, with a hint of Kiwi, and some Utahn sprinkled in for good measure.
Apparently when I say Turd, it sounds very 'proper'.
But that's not the point of this post. Following some heated discussion with a reader following my last post, he pointed me toward an article. He also send me some Glenn Beck audio.
I should add that although this reader and I differ more often than not, and are both likely the cause for heads being banged against computer desks in in both our homes, it's always an informative debate and I don't think I've had a discussion with him where I haven't learned anything.
Let hit Glenn first.
Dammit Glenn! You're a funny guy and you have an excellent way of putting things. I think you could be a real influence for good on this country... That said though... Being a TURD and saying dumb stuff like I mentioned in the previous post make it really hard to listen to you. Even after I lost faith in Bush, the Republicans, Hannity and Rush, I still liked to listen to you everyday on the way home from work, but then it got to the point where every time I turned on, it was the end of the world, and the Apocalypse was coming and all of that crap. I suspect I may have had bad timing, and perhaps by turning on at the same time as I left work every day, I was just hitting right at the point in your show when you planned to do that stuff. I just couldn't listen to it, and still arrive home 30 minutes later, not wanting to find a cliff to drive off.
It's a great pity! Glenn you could be so much more. Get off the political stuff and come back to normal fun stuff. A little less gloom and doom and a little more 109.5 The Frog and Moron Trivia. I swear I'll come back if you do! I'll even subscribe to the newsletter that it took me 6 months to get unsubscribed from. Perhaps I'll even back order the 2007 copies of Fusion magazine which I put in the trash last week. A little more fusion between entertainment and enlightment and a little less bidding to your conservative masters.
Now lets hit the article. It made a lot of sense and pointed out some very real problems. If I may quote...
With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?
To all those TURDS in Washington... Seriously guys, what the hell is wrong with you.
The article is here. I would highly recommend it and a huge thanks to Mr. D. Sirmize for the find.
I was right, but I would rather I wasn't...
Or perhaps I'm just a prophet... Either way, I have the kind of damming evidence of hypocrisy and fear mongering that would give even the great Rush Limbaugh an instant orgasm!! And the best part is, I don't even have to really add any commentary, since I think it speaks for itself.
First, lets put all of this in context...
The Health Care reform bill provides for a person, or family of a person to meet with a doctor concerning end of life care. So if you have an aging parent, you can meet with your doctor and discuss things like hospice, living wills and that kind of thing. Previously this type of visit would not have been covered by Medicare. I personally think it's a good thing. I've never been through the impending loss of a loved one and so when I am faced with that, it would be nice to be able to speak with a professional about it, and find out what options we have available. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a provision to allow euthanasia, or encourage euthanasia or anything even close to that.
On Friday, the great Sarah Pallin made the following statement on her FaceBook page...
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care."
Like I said - no real commentary is needed.
I made mention a few weeks ago that acquaintances of mine firmly believed this same thing, that the Obama Health Care plan would allow for abortion up to 2 years old and uthenasia of anyone over 60. And since the only news these people listen too is the Glenn Beck show and Rush Limbaugh, I made the assumption that they had gotten this from listening to his show. I was called out on it, since I had no evidence, and there may well not have been any evidence at the time. I was merely making an assumption, which may well have been based on assumptions made by these people while listening to Beck and Limbaugh...
Until...
Again, no commentary is really needed.
I was asked yesterday about my sources... I typically don't listen to any radio shows or TV's shows dealing with politics, since my personal feeling is that all of them (both left and right) generally use fear to connect with the audience and establish an intellectual addiction. In following up on the death panel story tough, I did check a couple of other sources which I found very informative and though provoking in one case, and absolutely hilarious on the other.
Lets do the thought provoking one first...
I don't watch Keith Olberman. I have seen his show on only 3 occasions. Once last year with his comment on Prop 8. Once last week on his comments about how the Senate and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have been bought and paid for by the health care industry and are simply doing their bidding. And then yesterday with his comments on the statements made above and their impact on our society.
A few things really stood out to me while watching this:
1 - Sarah Palin has become popular because many Republicans feel she was treated unfairly by the Liberal Left Wing Media Machine. I believe there were a few incidents of this from left wing extremist, which was regrettable and inexcusable, but I believe the biggest effect on this story was the conservative media hosts pretending that it was far more wide spread than it was and blowing it way out of proportion. Personally I think it would be great to have a woman president. And if the Republicans can find an articulate and intelligent woman to run, she might even get my vote, but Sarah Palin is not that women. Anyway moving on... Keith's comments about her use of her child in her statement I found particularly poignant.
2 - The responsibility which lies with Palin, Beck and others for the words they say. I've said this before on this blog. When you have a public forum and you shout your opinion in the homes of millions of American's, you bear a certain amount of responsibility for how your words get interpreted.
3 - Finally his analogy about your neighbor and driving. I think it's a message that could well be taken to heart by all involved in politics.
But without further ado...
Now, I'll admit that was a little heavy, so here is perhaps the political commentator I watch the most of... I've found his to be the most objective news show out there, which is kind of sad, since it's a COMEDY NEWS SHOW!!
Monday nights episode dealt with this issue as well. It's funny, and it gets even funnier in segment 2. But at the same time, I think it helps to paint a disturbing picture about the lengths people will go to, to avoid the other team accomplishing something - albeit a picture with bright, neon colors!
First, lets put all of this in context...
The Health Care reform bill provides for a person, or family of a person to meet with a doctor concerning end of life care. So if you have an aging parent, you can meet with your doctor and discuss things like hospice, living wills and that kind of thing. Previously this type of visit would not have been covered by Medicare. I personally think it's a good thing. I've never been through the impending loss of a loved one and so when I am faced with that, it would be nice to be able to speak with a professional about it, and find out what options we have available. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a provision to allow euthanasia, or encourage euthanasia or anything even close to that.
On Friday, the great Sarah Pallin made the following statement on her FaceBook page...
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care."
Like I said - no real commentary is needed.
I made mention a few weeks ago that acquaintances of mine firmly believed this same thing, that the Obama Health Care plan would allow for abortion up to 2 years old and uthenasia of anyone over 60. And since the only news these people listen too is the Glenn Beck show and Rush Limbaugh, I made the assumption that they had gotten this from listening to his show. I was called out on it, since I had no evidence, and there may well not have been any evidence at the time. I was merely making an assumption, which may well have been based on assumptions made by these people while listening to Beck and Limbaugh...
Until...
Again, no commentary is really needed.
I was asked yesterday about my sources... I typically don't listen to any radio shows or TV's shows dealing with politics, since my personal feeling is that all of them (both left and right) generally use fear to connect with the audience and establish an intellectual addiction. In following up on the death panel story tough, I did check a couple of other sources which I found very informative and though provoking in one case, and absolutely hilarious on the other.
Lets do the thought provoking one first...
I don't watch Keith Olberman. I have seen his show on only 3 occasions. Once last year with his comment on Prop 8. Once last week on his comments about how the Senate and Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have been bought and paid for by the health care industry and are simply doing their bidding. And then yesterday with his comments on the statements made above and their impact on our society.
A few things really stood out to me while watching this:
1 - Sarah Palin has become popular because many Republicans feel she was treated unfairly by the Liberal Left Wing Media Machine. I believe there were a few incidents of this from left wing extremist, which was regrettable and inexcusable, but I believe the biggest effect on this story was the conservative media hosts pretending that it was far more wide spread than it was and blowing it way out of proportion. Personally I think it would be great to have a woman president. And if the Republicans can find an articulate and intelligent woman to run, she might even get my vote, but Sarah Palin is not that women. Anyway moving on... Keith's comments about her use of her child in her statement I found particularly poignant.
2 - The responsibility which lies with Palin, Beck and others for the words they say. I've said this before on this blog. When you have a public forum and you shout your opinion in the homes of millions of American's, you bear a certain amount of responsibility for how your words get interpreted.
3 - Finally his analogy about your neighbor and driving. I think it's a message that could well be taken to heart by all involved in politics.
But without further ado...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Now, I'll admit that was a little heavy, so here is perhaps the political commentator I watch the most of... I've found his to be the most objective news show out there, which is kind of sad, since it's a COMEDY NEWS SHOW!!
Monday nights episode dealt with this issue as well. It's funny, and it gets even funnier in segment 2. But at the same time, I think it helps to paint a disturbing picture about the lengths people will go to, to avoid the other team accomplishing something - albeit a picture with bright, neon colors!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Healther Skelter | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate | ||||
| ||||
Monday, August 10, 2009
Rubber my Duck!
I like this... Combining comedy with topical issues, it's like the way I want this blog to be, but it works and it's done in about 2 minutes!
And I think we all know someone like this...
And I think we all know someone like this...
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Reasons for War
I've been thinking a writing up a post on War...
I want to test out the hypothesis that all wars have a foundation in some form of Religious belief system.
Can anyone think of a war which hasn't either been started, or revolved around that?
I want to test out the hypothesis that all wars have a foundation in some form of Religious belief system.
Can anyone think of a war which hasn't either been started, or revolved around that?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Socialism...
I know this is going to torque a few of my readers, but it's just my opinion, and you are perfectly within reason to disagree.
I've been thinking about socialism lately, and I'm coming round to believe that it may actually be a good thing...
I was talking with a buddy while we were running the other day, and he made an interesting comment. He's one of those real right wing leaning, gun enthusiast type people, the kind I usually avoid political discussions with, but that aside.
He made the comment that he felt that capitalism, socialism and communism were all perfectly fine ways of running a country. The problem is when people get greedy and abuse the system to benefit themselves. We may not have agreed on who should have been voted in as president last year, but I wholeheartedly agree with him on that.
So... With that in mind, allow me to share a couple of ideas as to why I think Socialism would be a good direction for the US to head in. I do speak with some authority on this, since I spent some time in New Zealand, which is run on a socialist system - even though while there I thought socialism was 'The Devil'.
1 - Health care
It's the hot topic right now, so why not! Everyone in New Zealand has access to decent and affordable health care. It's not just emergency health care, it's everyday prevention type stuff too. The problem with only providing emergency health care is that generally by the time you think you need it, it often too late. A key argument against Universal Health care is that the US has the best health care in the world. Leaders from other countries come here for medical attention... But the question I would ask, is... At what price do we have the best health care? Price being the key word. It's all about money, and if you have a lot of it, you can afford the best. If you don't... Sucks to be you, I guess!
2 - Standard of Living
The thing I really like about New Zealand was the equality. While there were some who were rich, they were few and far between. But at the same time there weren't very many poor people either. Minimum wage is pretty high, and top wage earners don't make much more... Or if they do, they get taxed at a higher rate. It puts people on more of an even playing field. The main argument against this is the lack of motivation, but check out #3
3 - Quality of Life
I loved living in New Zealand, because of the Quality of Life. People care passionately about Rugby, Cricket and Beer. The pace of life is slower and people are very laid back. Part of this is cultural, but I think that culture has been impacted by the Socialist form of government. Money isn't the object for our existence, but it seems like in the United States, its become that. We want more, we want it now, and we want more that the other guy has. It's how we measure success. Money isn't the object of your existence in New Zealand, rather it would appear that life is.
During the election last year, many accused Mr. Obama of being a socialist. I think somehow Americans have it in their minds that socialism equals everyone is poor, wears drab clothing and has to stand in line for bread at the store. The thing is though, even though some of his ideas are definitely socialist, he ran with them as his platform, and as they say on American Idol... America voted.
I've been thinking about socialism lately, and I'm coming round to believe that it may actually be a good thing...
I was talking with a buddy while we were running the other day, and he made an interesting comment. He's one of those real right wing leaning, gun enthusiast type people, the kind I usually avoid political discussions with, but that aside.
He made the comment that he felt that capitalism, socialism and communism were all perfectly fine ways of running a country. The problem is when people get greedy and abuse the system to benefit themselves. We may not have agreed on who should have been voted in as president last year, but I wholeheartedly agree with him on that.
So... With that in mind, allow me to share a couple of ideas as to why I think Socialism would be a good direction for the US to head in. I do speak with some authority on this, since I spent some time in New Zealand, which is run on a socialist system - even though while there I thought socialism was 'The Devil'.
1 - Health care
It's the hot topic right now, so why not! Everyone in New Zealand has access to decent and affordable health care. It's not just emergency health care, it's everyday prevention type stuff too. The problem with only providing emergency health care is that generally by the time you think you need it, it often too late. A key argument against Universal Health care is that the US has the best health care in the world. Leaders from other countries come here for medical attention... But the question I would ask, is... At what price do we have the best health care? Price being the key word. It's all about money, and if you have a lot of it, you can afford the best. If you don't... Sucks to be you, I guess!
2 - Standard of Living
The thing I really like about New Zealand was the equality. While there were some who were rich, they were few and far between. But at the same time there weren't very many poor people either. Minimum wage is pretty high, and top wage earners don't make much more... Or if they do, they get taxed at a higher rate. It puts people on more of an even playing field. The main argument against this is the lack of motivation, but check out #3
3 - Quality of Life
I loved living in New Zealand, because of the Quality of Life. People care passionately about Rugby, Cricket and Beer. The pace of life is slower and people are very laid back. Part of this is cultural, but I think that culture has been impacted by the Socialist form of government. Money isn't the object for our existence, but it seems like in the United States, its become that. We want more, we want it now, and we want more that the other guy has. It's how we measure success. Money isn't the object of your existence in New Zealand, rather it would appear that life is.
During the election last year, many accused Mr. Obama of being a socialist. I think somehow Americans have it in their minds that socialism equals everyone is poor, wears drab clothing and has to stand in line for bread at the store. The thing is though, even though some of his ideas are definitely socialist, he ran with them as his platform, and as they say on American Idol... America voted.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
So close!
This posting probably belongs on my other blog, but I'm trying to get a series started over on that one to do with the financial aspects of religion.
Anyway, so I've found a new blog I like... I used to read one by a guy (or gal) who went by the name of Bishop Higgins. I don't know what happened to him, but since June, he's been really quiet. But I found another one yesterday and it might be even funnier. It's the blog for the Spanish Fork 401st Ward. You can link to it here.
So this morning, I started at the beginning of his blog, and was reading through. He referenced something in the Journal of Discourses that related back to something I've been discussing with Mrs. Koda, so I thought I would post it here. It makes a really great point up front, and then does a complete 180, and goes completely wacko at the end.
For those who don't know... The Journal of Discourses is a collection of speeches and other articles by the founder and the first couple of leaders of the LDS Church. For many years, Mormons were encouraged to have this collection in their homes, but about half a century ago, the Church asked all of these to be handed back in. Reviewing some of the topic contained there in provides both an explanation as to why they did this, and also a fair amount of entertainment.
You can find this particular quote here. You'll want to hit the next page link in the top left, and then go to page 128.
I'll break the quote into 2 parts... Oh and it's by Brigham Young - Prophet #2, Founder of Utah, and the dude who was responsible for settling Utah and establishing Salt Lake City and many of the surrounding towns.
Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for ourselves and pray for yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early impressions that are untrue.
Thinking for yourself - hmmm. Now that's a novel concept. You may recall my account of the dipstick from my local congregation who called at 6am a couple of Sundays ago. Mrs. Koda has been defending the man by saying that it wasn't his fault, since he was asked by his leaders to call. By my opinion is that while he was asked to call, he should have paused, thought about the ramifications of calling someones home at 6 freaking am on a Sunday, and realized it was a bad idea.
Stephen R. Covey in his book, the 7 habits of highly effective people, talks about the ability that humans have to receive a stimulus and then consciously decide on the response. He maintains our response - ability is what separates us from the animals, and I tend to agree. The LDS Church would appear to have become an organization that seeks to remove this ability, rather than encourage it.
So that was the cool part of the quote... The next bit was really interesting. Mormon folklore teaches that BY taught that homosexuality caused the downfall of Rome, and in fact I had a fundamentalist type guy use that in a debate on the matter last year. Anyway, so with that in mind...
Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively that in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of woman among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom thought all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay at the root of their institutions both national and religious.
First of all, after reading that I was rotflmao!!!
Second, did anyone pick up the logical inconsistencies?
One of the justifications taught within the LDS Church to support the notion of polygamy amongst the early members, was that there was a surplus of women who needed husbands - and generally that need was so that the women could purchase land and that kind of thing. Of course a study of history would prove that idea completely inconsistent with how the practice was implemented, but that's another topic for another day.
So... too many woman means they had to practice polygamy, and yet the argument put forth in that quote deals with the scarcity of woman, and how the notion of monogamy somehow promotes wife stealing and robbery... Interestingly enough, wife stealing occurred a great deal when the founder started practicing polygamy.
Anyway, I found the whole thing both humorous and ironic. Elsewhere I've read that at the point, the LDS Church has not outlawed the drinking of alcohol, and it is noted that BY himself was known to have a beer. Perhaps it was a quote like this that persuaded successive prophets to ban alcohol all together...
Of course the flipside might be... This whole monogamy thing might be the whole reason that the US and the World seems to be going to hell in a handbasket - at least according to the more religious and conservative individuals in the world. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the 'Conservatives' really need to take a hard line against traditional marriage!
Anyway, so I've found a new blog I like... I used to read one by a guy (or gal) who went by the name of Bishop Higgins. I don't know what happened to him, but since June, he's been really quiet. But I found another one yesterday and it might be even funnier. It's the blog for the Spanish Fork 401st Ward. You can link to it here.
So this morning, I started at the beginning of his blog, and was reading through. He referenced something in the Journal of Discourses that related back to something I've been discussing with Mrs. Koda, so I thought I would post it here. It makes a really great point up front, and then does a complete 180, and goes completely wacko at the end.
For those who don't know... The Journal of Discourses is a collection of speeches and other articles by the founder and the first couple of leaders of the LDS Church. For many years, Mormons were encouraged to have this collection in their homes, but about half a century ago, the Church asked all of these to be handed back in. Reviewing some of the topic contained there in provides both an explanation as to why they did this, and also a fair amount of entertainment.
You can find this particular quote here. You'll want to hit the next page link in the top left, and then go to page 128.
I'll break the quote into 2 parts... Oh and it's by Brigham Young - Prophet #2, Founder of Utah, and the dude who was responsible for settling Utah and establishing Salt Lake City and many of the surrounding towns.
Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for ourselves and pray for yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early impressions that are untrue.
Thinking for yourself - hmmm. Now that's a novel concept. You may recall my account of the dipstick from my local congregation who called at 6am a couple of Sundays ago. Mrs. Koda has been defending the man by saying that it wasn't his fault, since he was asked by his leaders to call. By my opinion is that while he was asked to call, he should have paused, thought about the ramifications of calling someones home at 6 freaking am on a Sunday, and realized it was a bad idea.
Stephen R. Covey in his book, the 7 habits of highly effective people, talks about the ability that humans have to receive a stimulus and then consciously decide on the response. He maintains our response - ability is what separates us from the animals, and I tend to agree. The LDS Church would appear to have become an organization that seeks to remove this ability, rather than encourage it.
So that was the cool part of the quote... The next bit was really interesting. Mormon folklore teaches that BY taught that homosexuality caused the downfall of Rome, and in fact I had a fundamentalist type guy use that in a debate on the matter last year. Anyway, so with that in mind...
Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively that in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of woman among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom thought all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay at the root of their institutions both national and religious.
First of all, after reading that I was rotflmao!!!
Second, did anyone pick up the logical inconsistencies?
One of the justifications taught within the LDS Church to support the notion of polygamy amongst the early members, was that there was a surplus of women who needed husbands - and generally that need was so that the women could purchase land and that kind of thing. Of course a study of history would prove that idea completely inconsistent with how the practice was implemented, but that's another topic for another day.
So... too many woman means they had to practice polygamy, and yet the argument put forth in that quote deals with the scarcity of woman, and how the notion of monogamy somehow promotes wife stealing and robbery... Interestingly enough, wife stealing occurred a great deal when the founder started practicing polygamy.
Anyway, I found the whole thing both humorous and ironic. Elsewhere I've read that at the point, the LDS Church has not outlawed the drinking of alcohol, and it is noted that BY himself was known to have a beer. Perhaps it was a quote like this that persuaded successive prophets to ban alcohol all together...
Of course the flipside might be... This whole monogamy thing might be the whole reason that the US and the World seems to be going to hell in a handbasket - at least according to the more religious and conservative individuals in the world. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the 'Conservatives' really need to take a hard line against traditional marriage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)