Definitions and Perceptions

  I've been lurking around on different forums...

  Let me back up, I belong to very few forums, but I lurk on a great many.   Often times I find the intellectual discourse incredibly fascinating...   The best forums I think are the ones that encourage the most arguments, while avoiding trolling, or the kneejerk political responses, which always sends the particular thread into a flame war...
  Now, as entertaining as that may be, sometimes I find myself reacting up to but not quite the point where I have the intense desire to join a forum just so that I can say my peace...

  But forums are a community, and joining just to make a point is not just only a waste of time, but inherently rude.
  I have joined forums before, then continued lurking for a while, adding a post here and there, and currently, I'm a very active member of ZombieSquad, although I lurk a bit on Survival Podcast's forums, Fangoria's forums, and various niche forums, such as the wonderful teardrop trailers forums of Mikenchell.com, and the absolutely amazing forums of Expedition Portal.   Those of the VCDL and the various OpenCarry.org forums.
  I post on ZS, because I find the sense of community there unique, not only in the very warm and funny folks there, but because of the wealth of information available on everything from a budget oriented bug out bag to the very excellent advice on everything from gardening to woodcraft to firearms recommendations.
  The What Would You Do threads are occasionally brilliant (and yes, I think I've done a few good ones over time...) and the Fiction section has eaten up a great deal of my time when I should be doing other things, to the occasional irritation of my wife.
  One of the advantages of the ZS forums is within it's restrictions.
  No politics, No religion, specifically.
  This removes the flame wars, the name calling, and allows people with different belief structures to join and share information without the artificial barriers that ideology can create.

  Of course we do have our own versions, AK versus AR, (I prefer the AK) Pie versus Cake (brownies) and so on...
  It's weird...   But in the right way...

  But that's nothing about what this post is...

  Yeah, I know, what the hell is it about?

  Well, it's about forums, but not really, that's just where it started in my head.

  You see, if this post was really about the forums, I would have posted there...

  But I was reading about constitutionality on the open carry forums and began thinking of the way that the thread wound around and around.

  Personally, I believe that the rights enumerated in the constitution were written as simple and clear as possible.   It's a listing of what our founding fathers believed to be inherent inalienable human rights, and as such the constitution was created to protect those rights, but wise enough to recognize that it was not creating them.
  You see, an inherent right (given to us by our creator.... sound familiar?) is something that belongs to us all, sort of a universal truth, and the bill of rights was this fledgling governments attempt to guarantee these rights for us.
  I have found that laws inherently restrict our freedoms a little bit at a time.
  Hell, find me a law that does not restrict some aspect of our lives as written.
  The exception being the bill of rights, which in fact were written not for us, but for our government in a very real way.   They were very restrictive about what can and cannot be done by government, and listed those things that we actually have a right to (not an entitlement, not a luxury, and not anything provided).
  These aren't just american rights either, that's pretty clear, they are human rights.

  And they are constantly ignored by laws, by governments, and by well meaning, yet misguided activists who cannot see past their own agenda.

  For example, the health care deal...   Not enumerated, but seemingly on the table.   Do we have that right?
  You see, the others, Speech, Religion, Self Defense, Assembly, Etc, are those that we provide for ourselves, by our actions, by our beliefs, but we can't force others to provide it.
  Speech, we can say what we want...  Like I'm doing now, but I can't force anyone to read it.
  Religion, I can worship as I please, how I please.
  Assembly, you can't prevent me from meeting with others.
  This is the first amendment, and it requires action from me, but doesn't require action from others to make it happen.

  I could go thru the others, but suffice to say, they are individual decisions, and in case you need to, you have the 2nd amendment to secure and protect those rights.

  Which is curious as the 2nd is the one that is constantly under restrictions, almost more so than the first amendment.



  yes, I know, what the hell am I getting at.

  We have a bad habit of looking to government to secure our rights, to protect our rights, and most importantly and most dangerously, to DEFINE our rights.

  For example, when I was younger, I identified myself thru upbringing and nature as a christian.   But I was less than satisfied with the various religious organizations I approached, Catholics tended to have little patience from my (in hindsight) considerably irritating barrage of questions, I tried various baptists, methodists, etc.   I eventually led myself into the study of theology, after I threw my hands up and decided (gasp) to simply sit down and read the Bible front to back...   Took several times, but I began to understand a great deal.
  See I really didn't need to have my faith spoon fed to me, I needed to explore it, test it, expose it to different views, and like metal within a forge, I found my belief structure growing tempered, flexible but firm.   I found my path.
  To this I applied other rights (although I didn't really understand it) but it is in the exercise of those rights that they become yours.

  Churches tried to define my faith....   That was not freedom, that was structure, and spoonfed ideology.

  I understand the worth of community of like minded faithful people, but without the very personal exploration of faith on ones own, is it really yours?   Without testing the tenets, is it really strong?

  If I never say a thing, never try and write a story, write an angry letter to the editor of a newspaper, or zine, if I never carry a protest sign, if I never decided to write in this blog...   Would I really have my first amendment right?   If I didn't use it?

  If I never bought a gun, If I never carried a gun, would I still have the 2nd amendment?

  I read about the Open Carry's wins in Wisconsin, how peoples perceptions about firearms are changing and how the laws and lawmakers are following suite.

  You see...  A right not exercised, like a muscle, will atrophy and die.

  If you don't speak your mind, if you lie to yourself and say that you have nothing to say...  We all do, it may or may not make sense, hell no body might listen at all, or read it (again, like this blog) but the simple exercise of creating the thought, of writing, of reading, of learning how to shoot, of investigating faith on your own,  is YOU defining your rights, instead of simply allowing others to do it for you.

  If you let others decide what you can and can't do, you will wake up one day to discover that you have very little rights at all.

  In my state, as long as your not a felon or mentally unstable, you can buy a firearm, you can also carry it.   Not concealed, true, but openly.
  There is no restriction, save age (18 and older) and certain security places that prohibit these actions.

  But open carry is in fact the truest exercise of your 2nd amendment rights here in my state, (and constitutional carry states have us beat there, but that's Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska.  No permit required for concealed).
  Concealed carry, requires a permit, and if there is no other truer axiom, it's that what the government grants it can take away.

  Opencarry.org has changed the perception of firearms, as has many other groups, from the heavyweights to the small regional gun clubs, and that has removed a lot of the stigma from the carrying of firearms.

  Hell, even if you take an afternoon, and take a simple firearms safety course, you can rent firearms and learn about them, and then maybe never return.
  But again...  If you don't exercise the right, if you don't define your rights, to your self, than any publicly elected idiot, any movie star activist, any one with an agenda gets to define it for you.

  Laws are one thing, but it all begins with popular perception.


  Which brings me to the subject of this post...

  Perceptions....


  People bring up three primary ways of looking at the world around us, when dealing with our freedoms, our rights.

  You have Legal and illegal, you have fair and unfair, and you have right and wrong.

  The three forms of logic and thought rarely coincide with eachother and when they do, it's bare coincidence.

  Legal isn't always right, and rarely is it fair.

  Legal is a matter of law, which should apply equally to all, regardless of any defining factor (Age, race, gender, etc.)
  Fair has a way of trying to make the playing field level.   example, since your born to a low in come family and your buddy is born into wealth, is it fair that he gets a new car on his 15th birthday and you get a beater?   No.   Is it fair that he has nicer clothes?  No.   But when it comes to your rights, do you get treated equal under the law?
  Depends.
  Is it right?  Okay, Right and Wrong tend to be moral issues and are widely defined, depending on the upbringing, etc.
  So, lady justice should be blind, and the law, and more importantly our RIGHTS should be available to us, equally, right?

  Then why are so many restrictions made on our rights?

  When "cheap" handguns are taken off the market as saturday night specials, is that not restricting the ability of less fortunate people access to self defense?
  That's one simple example, and there are endless more.

  In the end, our rights have to be defined by us, by our behavior, and by our actions, in our everyday life.
  If we don't exercise them, if we don't protest, if we don't educate ourselves, if we don't carry, if we don't speak, then the very actions become rare.
  And if something isn't seen, except by those who hold to an elite class.  

  In other words, only a priest or pastor fully understands the good book,

  Only an organization such as a union, or a political group can protest, not simply a bunch of people,

  Only established writers or authors can write books,

  Only the police and the military should have guns.

  Because they are the elite in their respective fields, and if they are the only ones exercising their rights as individuals, than when John Q Public walks into a resturant with a sidearm, he is seen as possibly a criminal.
  It's why people always ask, don't you need a permit...

  Because it's unusual, and public perception means unusual is wrong.


  We've got to define our rights...

  So when I heard about people open carrying firearms being demonized because of doing something outside the norm, I thought...
  Define outside the norm.

  Our perceptions of our rights is key to their ongoing existence.   The question is, who gets to define those perceptions... You?

  Or those that seek to restrict you?


  This is not some rambling tangent....    well, okay it is, but the point is that you take anything for granted,  your rights, your friends, your family...   One day it will disappear, and every day that you ignore that fact, it gets even harder to recover.

  Don't let it go so easy, folks...

  Define your rights, define who you are, and live as free as you are able to...


  Seer....

I think we are in trouble... (no shit)

  So, haven't updated the blog in a while, because to be honest, I'm not really a blogger, I'm more of a conversational talker, I can get really witty and interesting during a conversation, when I have people to bounce ideas and what if's and thoughts with, and tend to think much better that way.
  In a blog, it's more of a monologue, and as such, I find it harder to come up with something to talk about.

  But the last few weeks I've had these thoughts running thru my head, and let me first say that NO, i'm not a paranoid one world order type, nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

  Okay, I love conspiracy theories, but in general, I don't hold the government to be smart enough to really have a master plan at all, to much self serving bullshit for that to be effective, and frankly aliens aren't my thing...


   I have been watching the stuff going on in the world, with the economic crisis (of our own making, I might add, why the hell would anyone think a fiat economy was a long term good idea in the first place...), the european union seeming on the verge of collapse with riots and budget issues...
   Seriously, if government was so damn smart that why does every single one think it can borrow it's way out of debt?

  Aside;   Governments universal problem is that they are inherently self serving, even those that are supposed to be "of the people" be they republic, democracy, etc...
  The reality is that governments grow, they want to grow, because growth equals power, and power means that if your a dictator, you have more control, if your wanting to improve the lives of your population your always trying to fix things such as health care, jobs, etc.
  Sometimes you'll find (if you really look) that if there's nothing apparent that needs fixing, most governments will find a problem that needs fixing.
  The fix is usually ineffective at best, and becomes a bigger problem at worst.

  Take welfare, each population has those who are less fortunate, so we started with philanthopy, which is where those who have more, take on projects, charities to help those less fortunate, or built trusts and grants to provide funding for shelters, or to feed the hungry, etc.
  So we had a system, not perfect, that tried to feed the hungry, and still there were homeless and hungry, and when a depression happened, the government came in, and programs were created, wealth was taken (only a little from each person, so little that they could afford to loose it, and not  barely notice, but collectively it created a huge amount) and we supplemented their bills with money until they could get back on their feet.
  Of course, these programs began to grow, expand into food stamps, housing, after all, we couldn't just put a roof over their heads and food on the table.
  Some folks would never be able to truly work, a woman looses her husband by him leaving, or an accidental death, but had no skills, and had children to raise....
  The children...  more kids, more money.
  Combine that with a public education, noble idea, but when done by government, you find less involvement by parents, after all they didn't have to stroke a check for the kid to go to school, the price was share by all.

  Think for a minute, as a society, we are all for giving money to this or that cause, and the taxes are set up to automatically come out of our pay, a little each paycheck...
  Now, if we had to stroke a check once a year, we'd probably pay a lot more attention to where it went, but we don't, because we don't have to actually pay it in one lump sum.

  So it's like it's free, right?   Schools are free, it's the governments money...

  Where was I?   Oh yeah, so you have a system of welfare, and it begins to grow.   Politicians find themselves with a group of voters, a voting bloc, so to get elected, they raise the allowances, the extras, and before you know it, several generations have lived in the system.
  Is it wrong?   To who, the politicians can't get elected without the promises, so they're not stupid, and compromise is the soul of politics anyway, those accustomed to getting housing and food and spending allowances, they don't want it to stop either, human nature.
  Are those on welfare to blame?   Why, they didn't invent it?
  A hand out to those in need becomes a program, which becomes an entitlement, and now is damn near considered (is considered in most ways) a right.

  Take health care.
  We had a damn good system of healthcare years ago, not as good as some, but better than most...
  So, there were some folks that didn't have health care, either because they were young and healthy and figured they wouldn't get sick (when your young, you never do, right?) but some simply couldn't afford it, so people in government took it into their head that everyone deserved healthcare...
  In fact everyone deserved inexpensive healthcare, and the healthcare providers were making too money off of people.
  Suddenly there are debates, and people began to push ideas around (remarkably few people who actually worked in the field of medicine...   Go figure...) and came up with the idea of group plans that could be worked in instead of individual insurance.
  Welcome to the world of HMOs, but HMOs needed some help competing, so the government subsidized them heavily to the point where the insurance providers couldn't compete very well.
  Yay, we have cheap health care, and with a few more laws, any business bigger than a family run small business had to help pay the cost...
  But with such a little amount of "cost", benefits were starting to drop off, and private insurers had to cut benefits, and raise their rates.
  Flash forward and now you have primarily HMOs in the industry, and private companies are mostly gone, except for those catering to those wealthy enough to afford them.
  But now that the HMOs have cornered the market, the rates have to go up a little bit here, a little bit there, and without much competition, you have... the same problems, but with higher cost.
  Of course now people want a universal health care system...  we started out with choice, and competing private companies, each trying to out do the other, and today we have people clamoring for government run health care...
  With no choice, how much of a benefit do you think you will have, when the budgets are more important than the health of the patient...
  Want a better health care plan?  From who?   All those greedy insurance providers are run out of town, so your stuck with whatever you get.
  Want a good doctor?   If you don't pay them a huge chunk of dough, what's the purpose of them getting a medical license in the first place.
  If a doctor isn't gonna make six figures, how the hell is he going to pay for his degrees...

  Oh yeah, college.    30 years ago, you could graduate college with a degree and a good shot at a career that is better than most, today you graduate with a debt that will take you years, if not decades to pay off.
  What changed?   Read the above paragraph and think about how many times in the last few decades have you heard the mantra that "everyone deserves a college education"  You can make up to a million dollars over a career more with a college education...
  Sure.
  Here's the problem...   A college education at one point was a rare thing in the work force, a degree meant that you were the top of your class in school, hell you couldn't get into a good college without stellar grades, they simply wouldn't "accept you"...
  Today, they will accept any form of major payment...   2.0 grades?  no problem, some remedial courses to ramp you up to speed.   No money?  Well, get a federal loan of course, you can pay it later...
  Add to that that the average college degree is needed in what, 20 percent of the jobs out there?   So the idea that everyone deserves to go to college is fine, and a college education is nothing to be glib about, higher education can harm nothing, but recognize that if everyone gets one, then 80 percent of the who graduate are getting knowledge, (of course) a degree (which you add to 20 bucks and you have a nice plaque to hang on the wall), and decades of debt.
  Decades of debt.

  Debt is what started this blog today, and here's my thing...
  We live in a credit society, if you have never been in debt, you have no credit...
  Start doing some research into fiat economics and it will be a vast eye opener,  but suffice to say, that debt is money.
  The only value that money has is in payment of debt.
  Our economy is based on how many IOUs are in the bank.   These of course provide the basis for loaning money which creates more debt...   We are a nation that loans money based on the value of the piece of paper that another person signed to get their loan and so on.
  Money is actually pretty finite, and once you tack in interest, then you run into a situation where roughly the same amount of people as the rate of interest will default.
  Once again, do some research, come to your own conclusions...

  But as a nation, hell just about every nation, we borrow more than we earn.
  Hell, the US borrows about twice of our GDP every year, so think about this...
  If you make 20 grand a year, and your run up the credit cards roughly 40 grand a year, but make it work by paying the minimum charges, how long until the credit cards are maxed and the interest rates make the end of the bills impossible.
  You could use the government standard of borrowing your way out of debt, but this is based on the assumption that you'll make more money next year...
  The problem is that (like inflation, which is pretty much flat, ie; no extra money) if you do the same next year, the debt will increase, and you'll have to find a job paying 60 grand to pay it down...
  But our government model means that if you did suddenly make 60 grand...  You'd charge 120 on the cards...

  But the congress cut 2.2 trillion dollars right?

  Yep, gonna call bullshit on that too.
  Heres the analogy that works for me;
  Your family (ie; the example I used above) is a government.  Standard nuclear family, husband, wife, two and a half kids, a dog, and a cat.
  You spend far more than you make.   And the creditors want some kind of guarantee that you can pay back the money.
  In other words, you need good credit.
  So mom and dad work hard, and make, say 100 grand a year.   But they have to keep up with the Joneses so they move into a half million dollar home and buy new cars every two years...
  But they are getting in debt, so how do they get another credit card?   They have to show more income.
  So they do what the government does;   they pay the kids an allowance and count that money as income.
  True, the kids are getting money from mom and dad, so no actual real income is coming into the household but when you add it together, hey, there's more income...
  Before you say that's stupid, remember that every teacher, every firefighter, every construction worker, every military contractor, every last person that works and receives a paycheck from "uncle sam" is actually getting recycled money that was taken out of taxes...  Government doesn't make money after all, it collects it.
  But on the books it looks like it's making a lot more than it is.
  Currently about half of the US's jobs are tied to taxpayer money, which does very little to grow the economy, because wealth isn't distributed, it's created by product and service...

  For example, if the kids went out and got jobs mowing lawns and washing cars, it would be adding income, but when they do that on their own vehicles and home, and are paid an allowance, it's not.


  So in the end, we have a family that is deep in debt...

  What's this got to do with cutting 2.2 trillion in debt?

  This; it's cuts to projected increases in spending....
  Read the line above one more time...

  Using our family analogy, it's like they are getting into debt, and one parent comes home all smiles and says, I've decided that next year instead of spending another 40 thousand on a new mercedes, we will only spend 20 thousand on a honda accord....
  See?   I've just saved us 20 thousand dollars...   Lets go shopping!

  This is how governments, hell, the world, works....


  So I've been watching the world, and i've started thinking how lazy, how entitled the world has gotten, how mankind is a spoiled lazy fat kid sitting in front of the computer, and wondering what's gonna happen if the power goes out.
  How many people do you know that can't make anything to eat that doesn't go into a microwave?
  How many people don't know how to change a flat tire or jump start a battery?
  If walmart's shelves are empty for a week, how many people do you know that will go hungry, because they shop day to day?
   What's the saying?   Mankind is only three meals away from savagery?
    I dunno, where pretty fat, I'd say we could make it six or eight meals before we start eating each other.

  The occupy wall street groups are running around blaming bankers and making demands, when there is no money left, we are too far in debt to pay for it,  overseas you have riots, and sovereign countries so deep in debt that they are hat in hand to anyone willing to help?

  And just how the hell can you call yourself a sovereign nation, when your system of economics is based on how much debt you owe to others?


  I think we are due for another dark age of mankind...

  At one time or another in our history, we've had empires, vast tracts of civilization with the most advanced societies of the time,  The Roman empire being the most well known.
  Now we have a global world, connected by fiberoptic cables and satellites and treaties that mean the sugar you make ice tea with is from another country, and the 2X4 that you buy to build your deck probably came from the other side of the atlantic.

  We are a nation of consumers, a nation of addicts, born and raised on instant gratification, and grown so very complacent.
  I mean, we've put people on the moon, and have the vast information networks available in the time it takes to move a mouse and go click...
  How could we fail?

  Not only do I think we can fail...

 I think we are past due...


  If anyone reads this, go out, don't take my word for it, but promise me one thing, and one thing only...

  Learn for yourself the cause of these things, don't rely on talking heads and sound bites, don't rely on politicians, don't rely on me, don't rely on anyone to tell you what's going on in the world,  look for yourself...
  Then learn to rely on yourself.

  If the lights go out, do you have the skills to cook, to make light?  and when the batteries run dry?
  If the shelves at the grocery store are empty, do you have a garden?  Do you have enough food to last, 2 or 3 weeks?   Longer?
  If the banks close tomorrow, and don't reopen...   Do you have money?   Can you barter, do you even know how?
  If you do, and your neighbor doesn't, what do you do when he comes over to your house and asks for food, and you stare at his children, who have played with yours, and know that whatever you give him will mean that your family will have less?
  If you say no and he comes back with a weapon?

  The world is growing very dangerous, very quickly...

  But don't take my word for it, and don't take anyones word...

  Take the stupid Ipod buds out of your ears, look up from the text, and take a look around you, really take a good long look.

  What do you see?

Miami Vice

  When I was a kid, Miami Vice was the center of pop culture, the center of fashion, and television crime dramas were never going to be the same...

  A lot of jokes were made since then, from the hyperstylized montages of action, to the insane amount of music that literally took the place of dialogue...

  All that fucking Pastel!

  And no one can forget the piercing stare of Lt Castillo....

 


  But before you judge, it was also one of the most innovative shows on television, and for it's 5 year run, it influenced everything from music to that five o'clock shadow that every guy absolutely had to have...



  As my argument that this was and is one of the greatest cop shows that ever aired, perhaps it would be better to simply watch an iconic clip....

  If that doesn't look cool....

  Well, you have forgotten what cool is...

Ever feel that redundant feeling.......

Yep....

 Work, Daily Grind...  Whatever...

  Some days are kinda like watching this...

 Hypnotic isn't it...

It's nothing deep, just kinda.... I dunno.... Deep?

Tom Bombadill

  I've been a huge Tolkien fan, for about as long as I've been able to read...
  But, and other fans may hate me for this, I've never been a fan of Tom Bombadill...

Perhaps it's the nonsensical abundance of music that he flows with, perhaps it's the way that his whole contribution to the Fellowship of the Rings reads as a complete Non Sequitur in a book that is otherwise nicely layered and complex in it's depiction of the characters and their motivations, their worth as individuals when compared to the influence of malice and temptation upon them, and the way that Tolkien can immerse us into a world of wonder and we can dream a little, loose ourselves in a place written so real, that it must have once been real...

  Ahem...   So, I'm thinking the other day that if, in fact, Tom Bombadill had been in very well done, and amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy, perhaps on an extended, extended, directors cut...

  Who would have played him...

  I know, your all thinking the same thing....
  Obviously, it simply has to be Cantus the Minstrel from Fraggle Rock...  Right?

  Really?    

  I thought it would have been pretty easy to see that pairing, but I get your point, although technically Gollum wasn't played by a "live action" person, and lest we forget, Yoda had Frank Oz crouched underneath him, one hand up his butt, and yet we all felt the wisdom and power of the little green hand puppet, didn't we?

  Okay, okay, so we have to limit this to an actual human actor....

  I've decided that, my vote to who would have been the perfect choice to play a non sequitur in such a role, something that literally is both shallow in appearance in a "what the hell was Tolkien going for here?" kind of way, but on second thought, you constantly go back and look again, nagged by the constant idea that you have missed something, something...   well, important...

  You even decide, that if it has nothing to offer the story, then maybe he was put there to offer, you, the reader, some kind of understanding of...  Well, I'm not quite totally sure, but it feels as if there's something there.

  Yeah I know, the films done and they've moved on to the Hobbit, and your wondering if the singing is going to be in that one.

  By the way, to those who thought the singing was misplaced in the films, or those who think there wasn't enough, relax....

  This post won't answer that question, now or ever....

  Because like Tom Bombadill, this post isn't really about the film versus the book, or even about the strange songs about clothing and color that Tom is fond of...

  In fact the post is really about nothing of the kind...

  Because, perhaps Tom was a character unto himself, and defies interpretive representation thru an actor.

  Maybe, just maybe, it was never meant to be...

  What actor could read these lines, and make them work....

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!"

I mean, what the hell is that supposed to convey?

 Is it just filler?   Is it the ultimate non sequitur in something that simply defines the identity of Fantasy in the 20th century and beyond...
  Perhaps,
  But this post isn't really about that, or even what the hell that is supposed to mean..

  It's about who could take such an iconic and impossible to understand character and make it his own?

  Of course, there is only one actor who could do that...

    Yep.....   So next time your reading Lord of the Rings; Fellowship of the Rings, and you start thinking about skipping past old Tom Bombadill's chapter, do yourself a favor, and stop, go back, and read it again...   With Christopher Walken's voice in your head as you read Bombadills lines out loud...

  Profound and intense are two words that I wrote down just now to make it seem that somehow this would all make sense...
  That the idea of posting about who would play Tom Bombadill would make some kind of sense either on this Blog or in life in general...

  And Like Tom Bombadill, you can enjoy it or not...   You can try and make sense of it or not.

  Or you can just read and enjoy...

  Because it doesn't have to make sense....

  Like our lives at times...

  Does that mean that life is like.... JUST STOP THAT....  
  I wasn't trying to make a parallel...





  Or was I?

 

Bigfoot?

So I watched the history channel's documentary Bigfoot, a definitive guide.   And yeah, while it was the typical made for television documentary (ie, light on info, heavy on reenactments with just enough to keep you watching.) this one actually had enough late in the show to take the idea of Bigfoot truly existing and gave it an interesting spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blzzkqkuS2A

  So, Does Bigfoot/Yeti/Sasquatch look like this?

 Or like this?

  The premise of the show turned towards not, whether or not Bigfoot actually exists, to where did it come from?

  This got my brain going into overdrive (which is partially due to the show, and questions and observations from a friend who has the ability to make me think in different directions than I normally would.   Many thanks, Redcrow!)

  So here's the idea, Bigfoot, Yeti, whatever you call it, might actually be, in fact, an offshoot of the human tree, most likely a form of Neanderthal.

  First, lets look at common misconceptions about Neanderthal.

  Media and popular myth takes us into realms of wild conjecture and outright parody, but from what science has been able to identify so far;

  The transitional or missing link has been found and discounted many times (beginning with the Piltdown hoax of the early 1900s, which both steered theory until it was discovered a fake in the 1950s and other disputed claims since) the only thing that we know for sure is that Darwin's theory of Macro Evolution in which one species evolves into another, ie; Neanderthal evolving into modern man, has lost a lot of traction, primarily since the discovery of an neanderthal settlement in a cave in spain where they found more modern homosapiens buried beneath them, proving that, if anything they coexisted.

  This in no way discounts Micro Evolution, which points to environmental concerns that dictate the changes in humanity, such as the Maasai of Africa and the Inuit of the Arctic have striking differences but genetically are both more similar by far than different.

  Here's a question;   If you discount evolution as a cause, (seeing how as so many of these variant humans seem to have coexisted.)  then what would have caused so many different versions of essentially the same species?   Was this a long change brought on by environmental causes, then why did they come with homosapiens and then disappear almost as quickly?

  What kind of influence caused the human design to branch so far and so much in such a relatively short period of time?

  Was there a radiological event?   An asteroid impact that changed the climate and behavior, and even the appearance of the dawn of humanity?

  Or was nature simply experimenting by some fashion to decide which design was the best?

  Clearly Neanderthal, with it's bigger brain and stronger body was superior, or is there something that we haven't learned yet?

  Is the Biblical history of Nephilim and the sudden branching of humans thru breeding with angels an option to consider?

     When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

(insert your own cause here; Angels, Extraterrestrial visitors, Zeus, whatever...) 

   This would explain the various forms of the human species.   So in that sense, these are abberations, genetic accidents?

   Within the bible, the earth is scourged by the Great Flood,  which is backed by the discovery of artifacts at the bottom of the Black Sea, lending truth to the story, which is not uncommon, most biblical stories of God intervening are backed by science, geological fault lines at the site of the biblical town of Jericho, etc.

  But let's not get off on a tangent, and assume for the case of a biblical source of Neanderthal, being the offspring of human and alien (not human that is) creating a new type of human, was curtailed by a flood, which to the writers of the scripture may have been their whole world, if not the actual world.

 We might even assume that it may have been the result of an asteroid strike that would bring on the effects shown, long term precipitation, (40 days?) a drastic change in weather as the skies are filled with debris and the other effects of a massive asteroid strike lend it's hands to leaving a very small group of survivors.

  But we can't ignore that others, may have in fact survived as well.   Perhaps in reduced numbers.

  So best guess, is that anatomically modern humans seem to go back father than any of the specimens found to date, not including those that seem to feed more into a traditional primate family.

  And except for what we call modern man, seemed to drop off  the radar for the most part in a short amount of time, relatively speaking.

  Now, evolution versus creationism debate, is beside the point.   There are so many new discoveries from the most recent "Woman X" , Desinova homonin, discovered a few years ago in Siberia and apparently shares little in common with either Neanderthal or Modern man. and the Homo Floresiensis or "hobbit" that has been both found in Indonesia, and rumored to still exist today in limited numbers, although they have not been found to date, other than rotting bones.   (not yet, anyway.)

  So add to it a dozen more variants and the historical evolution of modern man looks less like the traditional family tree and more like a tangled family shrub.   (Insert Jeff Foxworthy joke here.)

  

  

  The Usual Suspects?

  With modern genetic testing, we have found that interbreeding did in fact occur, and even today,  for example, the Denisova homonin tooth that was found shares about 4 to 6 percent of the genome with various modern humans in the asian continent as well as samples taken from Nigeria and New Guinea.

  Neanderthal shares around 4 percent with certain europeans as well.  

  The differences in geography probably lends itself to why one variant is more predominate than the other in different areas.   It's harder to tell, because of modern travel, and I would be interested to know if an older genetic group, such as those in iceland would give us more information.

  So do we assume that the smaller populations of Neanderthal and his cousins were bred into (or out of) modern man?

  

  Which brings us to the Bigfoot theories, rather than an undiscovered primate, is it not more realistic that they are, in fact, a descendant of Neanderthal, or Denisova homonins?

  

  Once you take away the myth, exaggerations, and hoaxes, the sheer volume of sightings, (both in the north american and elsewhere;  The Himilayan Yeti, the Chinese Yeren, the Vietnamese Batutut, and the Siberian Chuchunya amongst a dozen others.) lends credence to it's existence.

  So maybe we do have a species of Neanderthal that exists on the fringes of modern man, hidden from us by the millions of acres of woodlands and geographical parts of our land that rarely see a human presence.

   One of the best form of evidence seems to have been that the strange unidentifiable hairs that are found and held to be belonging to the elusive creatures...

  They are usually mentioned as being coarse and reddish in color, but testing cannot seem to find a home for the hair, except for the fact that they most likely belong to a higher primate as yet unidentified.

 "We found a variant of MC1R in Neanderthals which is not present in modern humans, but which causes an effect on the hair similar to that seen in modern redheads," said lead author Carles Lalueza-Fox, assistant professor in genetics at the University of Barcelona, Spain.

  

   It would seem that the more that we understand about the Neanderthal, suggests that they were intelligent, capable of speech, and in many ways, not so dissimilar from modern humans in appearance, except for the larger muscle tone, and facial features.   

  So while a shape running past you in the woods, can leave this imprint on your psyche;

  However, you might actually have a better chance at runing into something more like this;

  Makes you think, huh?

  

  Imagine yourself as a member of a tribe of Sasquatch, you have family that look like the guy above, and you live yourself a simple agrarian life, migrating in the deep mountains, and for hundreds of generations, then you begin to hear stories, of skinny pale creatures that look kinda like you, but almost hairless and wearing odd looking skins.

  Hell, sounds like some kind of alien!

  Perhaps you've heard stories of your great grandparents trading with these lean olive skinned tribesmen who warned you of the pale people, ghosts that speak in a strange language and carry sticks that kill with the sound of thunder.   

  Gods?  Perhaps not, but a week ago your tribe began it's move northward and you scouted ahead, as a young man and you find this strange person dressed in bright colors and wearing odd clothes and you watch as they fire a walking stick at an animal, the one you were scouting with your favorite spear and it falls as if struck dead by the thunder.

  Every year more of your tribe and others that you run into discuss these strange things, among others, strange flat stretches that cut thru the forests upon which these ghosts travel along, riding in strange conveyances of unnatural shapes and colors.

  From the variety of them, you cannot even fathom how many exist, but look to your tribe and wonder how so few could fare against so many and despair, growing more cautious.

  Perhaps a few of your tribe have raided their settlements, small square structures of wood cut flat and other things that can only confuse you, perhaps even captured a few, and assimilated thru the tribe, into breeding stock?

  They are weak, and cannot speak the language, and are frail, but are legion, and deep inside you despair for your tribes future.

  So you migrate, and learn to melt into the forest, and live, knowing that one day there will be no more.

  Or maybe you have taken clothes, and ventured past them, your heart hammering in your chest, buried beneath clothes taken from their washings, close enough to see them, but not enough to speak to them, and watched them as they spend a day, a week on the border of your territory.

  Maybe even learned to live amongst them, blending in, learning the language, for a while before returning to your tribe?

  

  An Adult male Neanderthal?

   So if the mysterious Bigfoot is nothing more than a Neanderthal that's somehow managed to make it's way thru the ages to coexist, hidden from view, who knows what we might run into on our travels.

  Take away the minor genetic differences, and there might not be anything so different from so called modern man, save the ravages of a hard life and living off the land for generations.

  Are these men above what lives outside the fragile thread that separates civilization from something feared or dismissed as myth and legend?

  

  Do lost tribes of Neanderthal live on the edges of our world?

  

  Would we really know one if we met one?

  Does explain a few of my camping trips though....

  

  

GOP contenders...

  Okay, let's take a look as some of what the GOP is going to offer us in 2012...

  First up, Michele Bachmann,  A graduate of the William and Mary school of law but never took the Bar exam, even though she served as a Federal Tax Litigation Attorney for the Internal Revenue Service before quitting to become a full time mother and housewife....
  She has five children and has fostered over 20 most of whom were pregnant teens...
  She also spent time as a "sidewalk counselor" which is interesting...
  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, have you ever seen those protestors screaming and yelling outside of abortion clinics?
  Yep.

  She's currently a member of the House, and serves the 6th congressional district of Minnesota.

 Her views on same sex unions and abortion are anchored in the standard republican mantra that is part of it's fundamental base, and she is a mover and shaker in the tea party branch of the party...

  I don't see her really standing out in any way...   And she'll probably be seen as a less interesting version of Sarah Palin, who has expressed interest, but hasn't tossed her hat in the ring just yet...


  Okay, how about Rick Santorum...  Whew, what can I say, except it's the typical toe the party line, anti abortion, anti same sex anything, (what is up with the whole, if I call it a disorder, or wrong enough, then people will stop being gay, stop having sex, issue.)   and he has drawed parallels between Iraq and Lord of the Rings.

As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States.

—Rick Santorum

  In 2006 he got booted out of office in Pennsylvania and has tried to get back into the public eye...
  So far, not so good.
  Something tells me this isn't going to be his time.


  Mitt Romney, considered by many to be the front runner for 2012,   Again we have the party line, no abortion, but he wants the decision out of the federal government and returned to state level...
  Gay and Lesbian rights, he says they should be able to serve openly, and while he doesn't believe that they should get married but does think that they should have all the legal benefits of a married couple.
  He is decidedly weak on 2nd amendment issues, having both supported the brady bill, and continuing to support a common sense "assault weapons ban".
  He also claimed to be an avid hunter (don't they all) but a little fact checking by the media found no record of him having ever had a hunting license of any kind.
  Sooooo...
  He's either a liar (politician???  say it ain't so!) or a poacher...

  Sheesh, from bland and blander to flip flopping falsehoods...


  There are a bunch of other contenders, but most all but a couple simply toe the party line in damn near every political checkpoint....



  Okay, gotta pause here...
  Lets go down the list on standard republican staples...
  Abortion;   the ultimate goal seems to be to have the practice banned except in the case of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is in danger...
              I get it, it's a horrible thing, but it's also a very private thing that really deserves to be kept between a woman, her significant other (for most cases, but that's another argument) and her doctor.
  I don't think that any doctor that specializes in abortions is a real doctor in the least, but c'mon folks, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!   It's a very scary decision that has nothing at all to do with the running of the country any more than buying a contraceptive, or anything of that nature.
  Keep out, Dammit.   It's your achilles heel, GOP, let it go...   Yeah, tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for it, but the polarizing of the issue helps no one...

  Budget/Economy; Okay, a balance budget, a not paying out more than you take it, fiscal responsibility,  All of that is noble, and necessary to our country, but dammit, practice what you preach.  You guys get into power during the Clinton administration and begin spending like your trying to play catch up to the Democrats...
  So don't expect us to trust you until you figure that out yourself...   Don't blame it on the war, and don't blame it on the Democrats, just stop spending like a fucking teenager with a Gold mastercard, M'kay?

  Gay and Lesbian issues;  Again, refer to the Abortion part of this rant, none of your fucking business...   Getting a theme here?  What the hell does it have to do with the governance of the nation?
   What part of all men are created equal don't you get?   Equal under the law?
   What people do in the privacy of their own home is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
   Geez, it's like trying to talk to a child while spongebob is on the idiot box....

  Civil rights;  See above, and read it again...   All created equal, none of your business, every time you create a law to define something you box it into a niche and whatever doesn't fit, is excluded.
  As far as the Patriot Act, if you invade privacy to go on a fishing expedition, without enough evidence ahead of time,  your stepping on our rights...  Go back and read the 4th thru 8th amendments to the constitution...  If you have trouble, look it up on that internet your trying to censor...

  Crime; the big issue here is the death penalty.   Let's face it, spending 20 years or more before you get zapped is not what you can can call a deterrent to crime.   And just because it's called a Justice system, doesn't make it all that just, there are people today sitting in jail who have proven that they didn't commit the crime, but because of our judicial system they have to spend years getting their case retried or overturned, all on technical matters or specific hoops that have to be jumped thru, and don't even try and say it's anything other than a political matter by that time.
  Once your convicted, it doesn't really matter if your innocent or not.
  Yeah, death of a heinous criminal may bring some closure to a family, but not nearly enough.   Unless of course, you let the family pull the switch.
  But without a swift punishment, what's the point.

  Yeah, you say, but what about terrorists, and mass murderers, et al.   How about you build a maximum security prison for those who would normally be on death row, and lock them up until they die?
  No prison interviews, no cable television, no workout room, no nothing.  Just a bed, food, and sunlight from time to time until they die.
  Cruel and unusual?   Not really, just not a holiday inn.

  Drugs;   Well, the war on drugs has gone well so far, huh?  How about we start with decriminalizing pot use?   It's both been proven to be less damaging to the human body as Alcohol and has only really been criminal since the early eighties.
  Hell, how about placing it on the shelf next to the Marlboros and Newports and tax it just as much, think of the revenue, hell, think of the savings of not having to spend so much money on incarcerating so many non violent users...
  If that's too far, than reduce it to a minor misdemeanor, crank out fines and use the money to fund rehab, or something good...
  That way you both make money, save money, and most importantly, take a commodity out of the hands of drug dealers and economically starve their business.
  Again, non violent drug users should be able to rehab, not be placed in prison, when they could be a productive member of society, not a criminal in training.
  And stop calling it rehabilitation, it's a penal system, designed to punish...
  A little honesty in titles wouldn't hurt.

  Education;  The goal is to limit the federal strings attached to the school system and give more control of the child's education to the parent....
  Umm...    I got no problem with that...   As long as the kid learns how to read and write,  I'm all for charter schools and home schooling...

  Energy/Environment; no Kyoto protocols, more energy independence, and exploration, reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling and pushing alternatives thru tax incentives and keeping the government regulation to a minimum.   Okay, Kyoto is pretty unrealistic, with todays technology, and so far economically suicidal, but if the tax incentives can push private industries to pursue alternative methods...
  Here's how it works, kids.  You don't force people to do something because it's right, and because if you don't you'll have to pay higher taxes.
  You show them how much money you can save, with the handy side effect of being better for the environment.
  Smart in theory, but in practice, not quite there, huh.
  There's a huge argument when it comes to "clean" technology, such as Natural Gas exploration, but we'll cut that one for another day.
  As far as global warning, they don't believe it's a man made thing, but more along the lines of a natural cycle of the earth.
  Look, as long as it's politicized, you will get biased and politically motivated results, and no amount of goofy graph and monotone folksy speechifying by Al Gore or anyone else is gonna make me trust the numbers...
  It's probably a little of both, but until it stops being a political issue and gets left to the scientists...
  But the subject is damaged goods, and will take a lot of work to not be an either or issue.

  Foreign Policy;  okay, for the last few administrations and into this one, it doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference.   Both parties spend money of foreign aid like it's made in a factory somewher...... Oh, wait...
  Debating this issue only counts if there's an opposition...  Which I can't seem to find... Both sides suck.

  Health Care;  Umm, here we go again....    NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, stop regulating our lives, let us be, and we can find a provider, because without government "help" manipulating the cost of insurance and benefits, then the system can begin to settle into something pre HMO, so stop trying to fix something that A; you have no business being a part of, and B; problems that you (both parties here!) helped create.
  No where in the constitution do I see anything that can be construed as an obligation of government to provide health care...

  Gun Control;  Boy this might take long, so I'll save the details for another time...   Look, since the supreme court has already ruled a few times that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, how about you stop with the stupidity, and this applies to both sides.  You wouldn't regulate speech, to what can be said (okay yeah you would) so why regulate gun control.
  The GOP is normally pretty supportive of the 2nd amendment, so I'm okay with that...

  In case your wondering, I support anything that promotes individual freedom and rights, and anything that restricts those rights, is vehemently opposed.   I want as much freedom as possible.
  I mean, restricting a right makes about as (censored) much (censored) as a (censored) in a (censored and tagged for potentially violating decency standards.).

  Social Security;  People should have the choice to invest in private retirement accounts.
  Why not, SS is pretty much fucked beyond all repair anyway...  Don't kid yourself, it's fallen apart years ago and now on life support...  Should have had a DNR.

  Tax Reform; the standard tax cuts and managing the budget.
  Yep...   How about a flat tax/consumption tax and take the whole guess work out of it?  No deductions, no write offs, everyone pays an equal and fair share???   No?...   Fuck off about real reform then...  and call me when you actually get serious about tax reform.

  Welfare Reform;   Get more people off welfare and into jobs, cut benefits that negate the incentive of getting jobs...
   Yeah, lets back burner that until the economy no longer sucks.  Sound like a plan?




  I know, I know, there are a bunch of other issues, but most of the group running for nomination all fall into that basic mold....

  Except.....

  Two are simply outside of the box as far as I can tell....

  First up, we have....

  NEWT GINGRICH; Former speaker of the house, writer, and architect of the "republican" revolution that pretty much bitch slapped Clinton in his first term...
  Hated by the press, but anyone that pisses off that many people has got to be doing something right, so lets see where he stands...

Newt Fucking Gingrich!

  That's right, the architect, the man, the legend...

  Okay, so he's pretty much lock, stock, and barrel with the standard modern Republican line, because he wrote it.  

  Yeah, probably won't get the nod, but wouldn't it be nice?

  Can you imagine the Saturday Night Live skits?

  Seriously though, with this guy, you at least know what to expect, and that's something that you rarely find in politics.

  I may not agree with everything he says, but you gotta admire his drive...  He didn't whine and run away all pissy like Pat Buchanan when he doesn't get his way....

  Agree or disagree, at least you won't get a switch and bait job.   He's Newt fucking Gingrich...

  But is he the future of the republican party???

  Is he there last hope???

  No......

There is another.......

  

  Hmmm....
  Just who the hell is this guy, Ron Paul...  wasn't he a Libertarian?  How the hell did he end up a Republican choice?

  Well...  How does he stack up on the issues?

  Abortion;  Well, he opposes abortion....
  Yeah, I kinda figured...
   But he doesn't think that the Federal Government should play any role in the matter, and quotes the 9th and 10th amendment that the issue should stay with the state, if at all....
  Far out...

  Stem Cell Research;  He supports the research and sponsored the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007 to promote stem cell research thru tax incentives....
  Huh....

 The Budget; thinks spending should be based on the Constitution, and if all spending had to be justified by the constitution, that spending would drop considerably, that we've come to accept debt, and that we shouldn't.   That war in the Middle East is something we simply cannot afford.  He also believes that the Federal Government has no business bailing out private industry.
  Can't disagree, really.

  Gun Control; He is pro gun rights, and doesn't believe in restricting constitutional rights, and believes that gun control actually makes things worse by disarming the public.
  It's like he trusts us more than the government....

  Death Penalty;  He opposes it.  It's not enforced uniformly and that the system is flawed and that innocent people have been killed.
  Um..  Wow.

   Civil Liberties;  He believes that government should stay out of gay and lesbian agendas, it has no place there.  That the Patriot Act should not be made permanent.  That Washington should not be allowed to dictate personal behavior.  That freedom of speech including the internet should not be regulated or taxed, and that Eminent Domain should be illegal...
  Fuck yeah!  wait, was he serious?

  I mean, is he really the smaller government, keep your hard earned money cause you know better how to spend it that government does, the stay out of our personal lives, as much freedom as we can handle, restricting how much control government has over us, kinda candidate?

  It's kinda hard to believe that someone like that is even looked at by either party..
  Wait, the elections are in 2012...

  Must be another sign of the coming apocalypse...


  So there you have it...   My rather limited overview of the upcoming nominations from the GOP...

  Ron Paul is the only one that I see as actually offering something new, but then again, it's his libertarian roots, that both make him appealing, and at the same time, make any chance of him actually getting nominated pretty nil.
  Still, he's the only one that seems to be thinking outside of the GOP standard line.

  When is either party going to recognize that the public isn't easily categorized or shoved into a cookie cutter template of voter blocks...
  yeah, I know....


  But at least this guy is got something to say, instead of the other ventriloquist acts...
  I'll watch the debates if he's in them...

  I share allegiance with neither party, and simply put out my observations as simply that...

 Observations....  and perhaps a word of advice to all running....



Please.....

 Pretty please.....


   Whatever you do, just try not to fuck up too much....


               Okay?












     Thanks...

Decisions decisions....

  So I've begun looking at the potential candidates for the next presidential election....

  yeah, it's a lot like that...






  I don't follow any party line, and in many ways you could say that I was a Policial Athiest.


  However, that doesn't absolve me from trying to make informed choices in the elections...


  Yes, I know that it's still a ways off, but I figure I'll get in on the action now...  See, with the democrats, it's easy, there going to try and re elect the incumbent...
   So it's Obama for them....  


  Whatever, he was pretty vague about the Change that he promised and so far, it doesn't seem to be for the better, his health care plan is great...   If your healthy, that is.
  I won't go into details, but have you ever noticed that when Government tries to fix something, a lot of political posturing is made, a lot of people are jumping to one side or the other of an issue, but for the most part, (aside from politically motivated ideologues) health care professionals are rarely asked what they think needs to be done?
  Yeah, what's the old line, We're from the government and we are here to help....
  


  So how's that change coming?


  Did he form a foreclosure prevention fund to keep homeowners from becoming homeless?
  Yeah, right, 75 billion later, and the major lending banks had a huge influx of money with no strings attached by the fed.
  So let me get this straight, that's how we help people falling behind, by giving banks money???
  Here's a few sources if you wanna read more, but have some aspirin ready, (generic of course...)
Govt’s Loan Mod Program Crippled by Lax Oversight and Deference to Banks - ProPublica
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/logiURI=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31

  Did he end income tax for seniors making under 50 grand?   Yep he promised that... Nope, he's done nothing...


  But what about the big ones?
  Did he let the Bush tax cuts expire?  well, there are many reasons, you see, and the economy is doing kinda not so swell, so we didn't let them expire, but hey!  we didn't make em permanent either, we just kinda extended them...   Until around the next election cycle... 
  Huh.  So, your procrastinating or just saving it for political hay before your next election?


  Close Guantanamo Bay???   No, huh....   
  Iraq and Afghanistan???   Hell, we got Bin Laden, where's the.... what?  Libya?  huh?
  
  So what have we gotten?


  Healthcare...  Yeah, because it works so well now...


  The Deficit...  If your credit cards are maxed and your deep in debt, you don't look to get another credit card....


  The stimulus package...  Ummm   did it even come close to working?


  Partisanship...   For someone who promised to reach out, honestly, we thought you meant to the opposing party, not your own...


  And for the love all all that we hold dear, STOP APOLOGIZING for everything you "think" America has done wrong...
  You apologized to the French....   because you believe that we've been acting arrogant towards europe.   Aside from the fact that we made sure that the french don't now speak german, WHY?
  You apologized to various nations for our stance on arms control because we actually have used a nuclear weapon....   (You know, to end world war two in the pacific theater?  History anyone?)
  He even apologized for the Bay of Pigs debacle....   Really?


   Okay, okay, he didn't use the word, but used words like mistakes, past history, and other sorta mea culpas for things that would, what?  Make the world think your a humble guy?


  Wake up, the President of the US isn't supposed to be humble, or talk to our allies and other nations with a hat in hand, oh gee, were sorry kind of behavior...


  If your really concerned that america had screwed up...  Your right, we sure have, and your job, is to make sure that we don't fuck up again....


  Jeez, man, grow a pair...




   So here's to you, Incumbent hopeful in the next election, and to all that you've accomplished so far;

   And in case you think that I'm some right wing fundamentalist...

  Stay tuned...
  The GOP is next up....