Mine Was Earned, Your's Is Welfare

I have long been struck by the oddity of the everyday Republican voter being so adamantly against "welfare" but not minding at all Social Security.

The refrain I usually hear, or see in memes on facebook is something like, "Entitlements?  My Social Security was EARNED by me and PAID IN by me!  It's not an entitlement!"

The premise then is that what the person had deducted from their paycheck from the age of 16 to 62 - 46 years - was then sufficient to cover what they will receive from the government from the age of 62 to 78 - 16 years.  Or, in some cases longer, but the guys who make this argument figure it's valid no matter what the math.  

It could be that a woman married in college, never held a job till she was divorced at 50, worked 12 years, then lived to 100.  In that case, she paid in for 12 years, and collected for 38.  But it's still not welfare, she "paid in".  Another may have worked from 14 to 68 - 54 years, then died of a heart attack at 72.  54 years paying in, and 4 years collecting.  Somehow neither of these people is on welfare, both paid in exactly properly, and both only got back "their" money.

Thank you for that insight, Whitey McPrivileged!

Now the truth is, it is voters being made to put in this money - over a great deal of time or hardly any - and those voters then sit by and watch their representatives spend that money on everything but a savings account for Social Security.  Having then watched them spend all the "savings" on wars, social programs, rockets to the Moon and such for 40 or 50 years, they then calmly hold out their hand afterward and ask, "Where's that money we saved?"

They know it will just be took from the next generation - as they complained loudly enough over the last generation taking it from them.  But somehow, that's not "welfare".  That's not a "Ponzi scheme".  That's somehow fair.

Well, what is fair to be put in, versus what then a person should get out?  I mean, few people have a problem with the "normal" case of 46 years of work for 16 years of Social Security - so is that then what is "fair"?

But wait, what of the military, who will take a boy of 17, let him work for them for but 20 years, then give him half pay for the rest of his life?  20 years in - and 42 years got back out!  Some how that's not welfare!

What of Congress or the President?  Did you know that one four year term gets the President "retirement" pay?  And that one two year term as a member of the House gets them "retirement" pay?

You may hold office in Congress at the age of 25.  So, let's see - 2 years in, leave at 27, and 51 years of collecting?  And that's not welfare?  Heck, I think that's the actual record of getting a ton back for virtually nothing in!

But wait, what of our "business leaders"?  CEOs, Bankers, Brokers?  For no more in than anyone else - so, zero - they "get back" billion dollar bailouts, tax breaks so vast that they are excused from paying taxes for decades, subsidies sufficient to buy entire industries and trillion dollar quantitative easings?  What's that "not welfare" add up to?  0 in, and infinity out?  Yeah, that's got to be the record.

Oh, but did I forget Donald's pet peeve?  Social Security Disability?  Yeah, I think I did forget that one.  That's where that's supposed to be "welfare".  Kind of odd, though, because that is paid for the EXACT same way as regular Social Security is paid for - by the workers.

A person receiving it gets it based on how much work they did before the disability.  If they worked more than some, they get a bit more than some.  Pretty much like Social Security retirement pay.  The more you work, the more you then get when you can't work any more.

Thus someone blinded at 18 might get $600 per month.  Kind of a crime to treat them so poorly, but that's another article.  If a person is blinded at the age of 30 though, then depending on income, it will be greater.  Say, perhaps, $800.  At 40, it might be - again, depending on many factors, but principally on work history, $1,000.  If they worked a ton more, and earned more money than average, then I think it can get up as high as $1,400, but that is pretty rare.

And not all that much, when you do the math.  Certainly not comparable to our 'retired' legislators.

How then is Social Security Disability "welfare"?  They work, they pay in, they get back.  Is it 42 years of work for 16 years of pay out?  No.  But nor is it 2 years of work for a half century of a pay out!  Instead, you see that it's about at "military" levels.  Anyone care to call the veterans "welfare bums"?  No?

But it's okay to call the disabled "welfare bums"?

Ahh, but I hear the cries from those reading this - "But...but...but...thems ain't 'real' disabilities!  They ain't blind, Ah ain't complainin' 'bout no blind folks!  They got like PTSD or Depression or Psychological crap that ain't real, thems the one Ahm upset with!"

Well, again, I might wonder how many of those Republicans are telling that to Veterans who return home with PTSD, Depression and "Psychological crap".  Though I'm sure they'd rush to assure me that when it's a vet, it's "real".  Because in Republican world, war is real, they get that, but life in general?  I guess one can only get their mind hurt and/or disabled by stuff they approve of.

War - yes.  Life - no.

Truth is, applying for Social Security Disability is no cake walk, nor is it easy to defraud.  The process generally takes around a year to a year and a half.  You cannot be working while you apply - ponder how that plays out.  Most all of the applications will be rejected.  Yeah, it's like 80% or thereabouts.  Not only your own doctors, but government selected doctors must sign off on this.  Paperwork backing must accompany the application.  Quite a bit of it. 

I have seen the application, and I sharply question the idiotic premise that those of our inner cities and trailer courts are educated sufficiently to pull this off in any noticeable number of cases.  Folks notoriously unable to see a job application through are all of a sudden up for a year and a half of doctors, bureaucrats, attorneys and such?  

Does this mean I'm saying no abuses take place?  Of course not.  There are those who game any system.  And just as there are those who put hardly anything into running the nation - that two year Congressman - and just as there are those who get far more back in retirement than they ever put in during their working years, and even just as some Veterans are gold-bricking dorks, so do some few abuse Social Security Disability.

Here's the thing, though.  I don't see Donald or the Republicans going after the Bankers to make sure they use those bailouts appropriately.  I see no oversight called for about our ex-Congressmen and Presidents who receive so much.  Did you know Jimmy Carter still has a nearly $200,000 per year office in Atlanta, Georgia paid for with our tax dollars?  

And he's the most frugal of the ex-Presidents, most claim half a million dollars annually for their own offices.  And that doesn't count any of their retirement salaries, Secret Service guards and on and on.

No, Republicans have no trouble with "welfare" they like.  Or their gramma's welfare.  Or the welfare they bank on when they turn 62.  More going to the person then they put in is NEVER a problem for them if they like the person.  Bankers, Veterans, former Senators, and THEMSELVES - it's all good.

But let some woman raped into suicidal depression collapse into PTSD, Social Anxiety Disorder, Agoraphobia and be unable to leave home, let alone go to work, and it's "Well, now hold on, how do we know she ain't fakin' it for all that free money?"  "Free" money she literally had to work for!

Well, you don't know if she's faking.  Just like you don't know whether the Veteran was brave or a coward trying to shirk his duty.  Or whether the Congressman was a statesman or a thief.  Or whether the retired guy was a hard worker or goofing off his entire career.  Or whether the banker made a poor investment choice or out right stole it.

And since you don't know, can't know, and never will know, it would be far more intellectually honest of Republicans, and their President, to stop pretending that this is some kind of "fairness" issue in which they just want to make sure no Working Joe is getting robbed by lazy bums.

Working Joes probably are being robbed for Lazy Bums, but those bums are more likely to be found in Congress and Wall Street then in the poor folk's single wides and one bedroom studio apartments. 

When you learn then of a man or woman on disability, do not be so ignorant as to think that if there is no cane, no wheelchair, no hearing aid, that they must then be faking.  To not be so hypocritical as to think that if it is a form YOU'RE not eligible for that it must not be "proper". 

What is good enough for every President and Congressman, what is good enough for every 20 year veteran, what is good enough for every person over 62, what is good enough for every Banker, and what is good enough for YOU reading this, is definitely good enough for those who had the misfortune to succumb to a disability that many aren't educated enough to know as "real".

They get based on what they paid in through their work - same as your gramma.  Tell the Donald who pays no taxes in at all to leave the disabled who did pay taxes alone.

Teenage Level Accountability

"Teenage Level Accountability"

I saw an article today in which someone pointed out something that I've pointed out - and been to all appearances alone in pointing out - for years.

That middle aged policemen should be held to the same standards as teenage soldiers overseas.

The article was about a policeman who was found "not guilty" of murder, even though he had shot to death some unarmed white guy after five minutes of making him do a bunch of weird circus tricks in the hallway of a hotel.

The writer made mention of the fact that he'd seen Al Qaida terrorists treated with more dignity and decency while being apprehended in war zones. The writer mentioned that we do in fact have "rules of engagement" for our teen soldiers, but none apparently for cops.

I know from my own service that the Air Force Security Police could not - and do not - get away with what I see in the non-military world. And would anyone claim that the danger is less for policeman on a 20,000 person base than a 10,000 person town?

At 17, I was in the United States Armed Forces Police Academy for the police forces of the Air Force and Marines. I graduated shortly after I turned 18, on the 16th of December, 1986. So pretty soon, it will have been 31 years since I left the Academy.

But I still remember the Rules of Force. And I can say calmly and dispassionately and with no malice towards any particular cop or cops in general that I see them violated each day in the news.

Civilian police are simply not held to the same standard - or any where near - as teen cops in the military. Or teen soldiers dealing with militants, insurgents and terrorists.

The writer of the article I saw pointed out most of all that "fear" - a fear that police can legitimately feel - is not an end all be all excuse for shooting first and never having it questioned later.

Fear can be felt - yes. But they are trained and paid to deal with this kind of thing, and paid far better than Privates in the Army are.

This is NOT an attack against the good and decent policeman out there, however many many or few the individual reader of this feels there are. Those good and decent policeman in many cases voluntarily DO hold themselves to the high standards of a soldier in a war, because they are moral, and because they signed up to aid people, not to exercise power trips.

It is a plea, though. That all people, including the good cops, start to realize that having a touch more accountability - even that minimal amount we expect of 17 to 21 year old kids - should apply to those civilians (and yes, cops are civilians) at home.

"To serve and protect". Good cops make that mean something. Every day. It's time for they, and the rest of us, to not shy away from expecting a touch up of accountability.

You donate more than Trump

According to an article from the New Yorker, back in September of 2016, "the public records indicate that over the past quarter of a century, he (Donald Trump) has given away less than $5 million of his own money.  According to his own estimate, he is worth in excess of $10 billion.  If we take him at his word, that means his charitable contributions come to about 0.05 per cent of his fortune, or five cents for every $100."

Had Donald become more generous since then?  To listen to his press secretary, one would think so.

Trump has recently donated his quarterly Presidential paycheck of $100,000 to charity.  He has so far donated all his Presidential quarterly paychecks to charity.  Yay, Trump.  His press secretary said this was due to his "compassion" and "patriotism".  And certainly $400,000 per year sounds like a lot of compassion and patriotism. 

But, well, how much compassion and patriotism does that work out to?  You know, compared to your average Joe Citizen?

First, we must determine how much $400,000 is to Donald.  Not easy, but doable.  We know that he has claimed to be worth $10,000,000,000. 

As to the "income" off of that we can only guess.  Donald isn't as forthcoming as other Presidents, and won't disclose his taxes.  But we can guess.  The average interest rate on a savings account is six percent.  So that's at least $600,000,000 that Donald is receiving in income per year.

I say "at least" as most businessmen have their money invested in ways that give them a substantially higher rate of return than just the average interest rate.  They sure aren't bringing in less, or they'd just give their assets to the bank and make that six percent!

To then find the percent of giving Donald is doing, we have to take the $400,000 of annual giving and divide that by the $600,000,000 of annual income.  This does not work out to ten percent, like some churches encourage.  It does not work out to 1%.

It works out to .00016, or 16/100ths of 1%.  Less than the previously cited .05, or instead of a nickel per $100, 1.6 pennies per $100.

So how much would Poory McMinimumwage have to give to feel as much of a pinch as Donald does?

A minimum wage worker is going to bring in $15,000 per year - well, before taxes and withholding, but let us go with that.  If we do the math, the man making minimum wage would have to give $2.50 per quarter, for a whopping $10 in a whole year, if he wanted to feel as much pain in giving as Donald does.

Yes, really.  I'm suspecting then that there is an awful lot of "compassion" and "patriotism" among the least of these are brethren.  A minimum wage man flipping a single quarter into the offering plate each week at church would be giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.

An alcoholic bum, showing up at an AA meeting once per month and putting in the buck for coffee each time, is giving MORE of his time and effort than our President is.
 
Looked at another way, the minimum wage worker would have to work one hour and fifteen minutes to match Donald's generosity.  Same with you.  So take your annual income, divide it by 50 weeks in a working year, and divide that by 40 hours in a working week, and that's your "hourly".  Multiply that by 1.25, and that's how much you have to give to match our President's "compassion" and "patriotism".

And if we assume that no one reading this earns more than $250,000 a year, then so long as you donated at least $156.26 then you've out donated our President.  And I know many, including myself, who while not earning a quarter of a million per year, donate more than $156.26 per month. 

Let's admit it then.

Our President is - as has been said before by many - the stingiest and least giving billionaire in American history.  And if his donations are to measure - as his press secretary said - his "compassion" and "patriotism", well then...

...I'm sure that press secretary is correct. 

The King's Bread

Once upon a time there was a new King of a somewhat prosperous Kingdom.  But it was the Dark Ages, and he - like the Kings before him - was given to corruption and greed.  Such that he would dip into the Royal Treasury and give out bags of gold coins to those who were his friends, and those who told him that which he wanted to hear.

Other times, like if the moat needed digging, he would not let just anyone do it, but would let some friend of his do it, and never question how much it should cost.  And thus his friends came to grow exceedingly rich in the Kingdom, though the peasants and townsmen and shop owners did not see their living conditions improve much.

In fact, the peasant's conditions were so poor that 20% of them needed to avail themselves of the King's Bread.  This was not literally bread from the King's table, but rather 190 mites that any who were hungry could ask for each month.

Now one day that new King wanted to appeal to the townsmen, the shop owners, those who while not wealthy, were not poor, and made up his main base of popular support.  So he promised to reduce the expenditures, and make sure that not too much of the Kingdom's wealth was gave away.

Did this mean he stopped giving big bags of gold coins to his friends?

No, it did not.

Did this mean he stopped paying his friends big bags of gold coins to do substandard moat digging?

No, it did not.

Did it mean that he decided that the 20% of the peasantry that depended upon the King's Bread should make do with less mites than before?

Yes.  Yes, it did.

And the King who cared not about how many loaded down caravans and mule carts of gold bags were flowing out of his treasury did set up all manner of inspectors and advisors to see if he could save some mites.

Could each peasant be measured about his waist, to see if he was truly skinny enough to need the King's Bread?  Could the King's magician cast a spell, such that if any peasant had drank some ale in the past month that it could be known, and the King's Bread denied?  Could the King make a law that henceforth mites could only purchase cheap and plain food, such that no pleasure could be had from it?  Could the number of mites be reduced from 190 - almost 2 copper pennies! - to 150?

Could the peasants who accepted the King's Bread be made to toil in the digging of the moats for free?

All these ideas did the King receive from all those who received bags and bags of gold coins each month.  All these ideas did the King receive from those who pretended to dig moats for more such bags of gold coins.  All these ideas did the King receive from townsmen and store owners who - while knowing that they could not safely get their taxes reduced by complaining about the King's friends, figured that maybe they could safely complain about the least of these their brethren in the Kingdom.

And from the peasants, the poorest 20% of them?

They were not sought for their advice.

And thus all the ideas for how to save money by changing the distribution of the King's Bread were implemented.  And while the friends of the King received as many bags of gold as before, and while the friends who got to pretend to dig moats got as many bags of gold as before, and while the wealth flowing from the King's Treasury was as disastrously much as before, the poorest 20% of the peasantry did get to tighten their belts.

And as the King rode through the towns, the townsmen and shop owners did cheer, each pretending gratitude that the King was trying to be financially responsible, though none of them had had their taxes decreased in the least degree.

The End

Sad versus Mad

Why do Democrats usually get away with sexual harassment, abuse and even rape, while Republicans - well, they still get away with it, but they look so much worse while doing so?

It's because Liberal Democrats when caught will instantly be sad.  They'll offer apologies - meaningless ones, but apologies.  They'll express remorse and repentance - without any consequences, but they'll express it.  They'll speak of accepting judgment and punishment - without actually then suffering it, but they'll speak of it.

In fact, they act as if they are appealing to a nation made up of a lot of Christians with big hearts - which, of course, they are.  And such Christians are ready to forgive at the drop of a hat, if that apology and pouty lip and moist eye are offered to them.

Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, will react far differently when accused.  They won't be sad, they'll be mad.  They go into the Frat Boy defense of "I wasn't there, and if I was I didn't do it, and if I did it she wanted it!"  They are hostile and angry and sullen and resentful.  They will try to ignore it first, when that fails, they'll try and deny it, when that fails they'll try and excuse it.

In fact, they act as if they are being judged by a nation made up of a lot of Christians with a great desire to condemn sinners, which of course, they are.  And such Christians are ready to judge at the drop of a hat, if that angry denial is not offered to them.

But shouldn't it be the opposite?  Shouldn't the conservatives be going the "repent and sin no more" route while the liberals go with the "Wasn't me!" route?

Sure.  If either side was sincere, that's EXACTLY how it would be.

But since each politician - Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans - are first and foremost politicians, they are almost by definition liars and hypocrites.

Thus the Liberals who love to pretend that the Christians are intolerant will immediately pander to what they know to be the Christian's good nature.  And the Conservative, who loves to pretend to be Christian, but knows he is not, will instantly deny everything as he fears the actual Christians who he does not understand, not being one.

The great masses of liberals defending their liberal politician will be quick to try to beat their Christian conservative friends over the head with this - "See, he said he was sorry, why you still on him, are you sinless that you can throw the first stone?"

And the great masses of conservatives defending their conservative politicians will be as quick to try to beat their liberal friends over the head with this - "See, you say Christians are judgy, but here you are judging so harshly!  Throwing the first stone already!"

What a nation of hypocrites the 48% of the Left and the 48% of the Right make us.

Hence my own shunning of each side and instead being Anarchic, with a vote only for the Libertarian Party, if I must vote at all.

What's your Party Affiliation?

This way the Republicans and Democrats can know which ones of you are real victims, 

and which ones of you are lying tramps.

Another Four Star Poser

Four Star General Troy Nehls - more often referred to as "Sheriff" - is in the news for how he posted on facebook a threat to arrest a woman for expressing a political opinion that the General found offensive.

In making this threat to kidnap and hold a random citizen against her will, the General lied and pretended that the District Attorney had backed his desire to do this. Fortunately for the 1st amendment, and that nameless citizen, the DA denied having backed General Nehls.

Unfortunately for her, she had a warrant for something else, and so he picked her up on that.

This makes sense, if each star represents one inch.

But as always in these matters, my issue is not so much the idiocy and tyranny of America's Sheriffs, which is already so well documented by so many others, but with the aspect of police militarization that gets the least attention.

Yes, we all know about how the police think they are soldiers, because of their idiotic habit of referring to their fellow citizens as "civilians". Yes, we all know about how the Department of Defense sells these wannabe soldiers a variety of military vehicles, weapons and gear so that they can play that they're soldiers and use tanks against student protesting with a sit in. Yes, we all know how police love to wear camouflage or black so that they can look like they're invading Germany, or being invaders from Germany.

But my focus is on the practice of a Sheriff or Police Chief compensating for whatever inadequacies he has by self-awarding himself the fantastical rank of "General". And not just General, but invariably "Four Star General".

For those who have not served, which sadly is many of those self-promoted "Generals", it only takes one star to be a General. Technically, that is a "Brigadier General", but they are addressed as "General". After that, two stars is "Major General", three stars is "Lieutenant General" and finally, four stars is simply "General". All are addressed as "General", though.

It is true that there are ranks above even four stars. But let's focus on the "four star" rank, which is for most all matters the highest rank you'll ever see or hear of. It is a very, very high rank. So high, in fact, that many famous Generals in history never even made it to that rank.

Like three star General Lee, who fought against the United States. Or three star General Grant who defeated him. General Grant was General of the entirety of the Armies of the United States at the time, and managed to do so without that fourth star.

You know who else never lived to get to that fourth star? Some three star General named "Washington". But he never had the awesome responsibility of keeping the peace in Fort Bend County. Or making sure that naughty women didn't write sassy comments about those in power. No, three star General George Washington only founded our entire nation!

Here's a fun fact. By law, the number of Generals that may exist in the military is limited to 80 for the Marines, and a bit over 200 a piece for the Army and Air Force. And of those Generals, only 25% of the of them can be higher than two stars.

But as to Counties and Cities? Oh, my. Literally thousands of "Generals" abound, and not a ONE of them has anything less than FOUR STARS and some of them have even gone "Full Five", which is so absurd that I do not even have the means of adequately describing it. I mean, they could declare themselves Sith Lord of Podunk County and it would be no more or less ridiculous.

Not that four stars isn't as ridiculous as a Sith Lord. I mean, when you self-award yourself more stars than the guy who founded the nation that your toy county is in, yeah, it's gone too far.

I've said this before, but let us all attend carefully here. In the old days, when men were men, and had physical endowments that did not require fancy compensatory titles, a Colonel was the top rank a civilian could self-award. And only under very strict conditions. Not easy to fulfill conditions.

You had to be able to recruit 500 citizens and provide for each of them. Horse, rifle, uniform, the works. If one could do that, then one could be regarded as a Colonel of an irregular Militia. And in those less formal days, that could be glided over to an actual rank of Colonel in the regular Militia - the Army. Though not any more.

Sheriffs are NOT Colonels, not even of an "irregular Militia", as they most assuredly do not provide for the men under them, nor do they usually have as many as 500, nor can they even support themselves. They are supported by taxpayers, who pay for their salaries and the salaries of the men under them. All of them, from the Sheriff to the Deputy to the third assistant paper pusher are CIVILIANS and any semblance of military rank is a courtesy only, and not to be took to meant they are soldiers.

Soldiers are men trained for combat to defend against enemies of the State. Police are civilians tasked with arresting people for misdemeanors and issuing traffic citations. Because - surprise - ALL citizens of the United States over 18 have the right to arrest for felonies. Yeah, really. The only extra thing cops have that you don't is the ability to lawfully detain a person for a misdemeanor or ordinance violation.

There is NOTHING about that job that in any way equates to military service. Ranks like "Sergeant" and "Lieutenant" and "Commander" are fine as far as they go, as these are lower down ranks for those who are performing jobs that bear a vague similarity to the military tasks of small unit leadership and coordination between various sub-groups.

Thus a "Sergeant" may be leading a group of "Police Officers" or "Deputies" that would roughly compare to a Squad of Privates and/or Corporals in the Military. A "Lieutenant" would oversee several such Squads, though in some cases, it may mean only that the man is now a Detective, with direct command of none.

"Commanders" derive far more from the "Watch Commanders" of old, literally men who coordinated the guards of the city gates and city walls of walled cities of the Middle Ages and ancient times! They commanded the guys who make sure Visigoths don't storm the gates and sack and burn the town! Or nowadays, they supervise those who patrol to make sure that no one is driving with mean words on the back of a pick up truck in Texas, where - sensitive Conservative Snowflakes that Texans are - words really, REALLY hurt!

Especially words on a pick up truck drove by a liberal woman. That's darn scary. Bet she wears shoes and votes, too.

And THAT is what FOUR STAR GENERAL Troy Nehls is doing with his time that he laughably imagines to earn him a rank GREATER than that of our Founding Father!

My point is that if you want to start de-militarizing the police, start not with tough things like breaking up a sweetheart deal between defense contractors, the DoD and the police departments/Sheriff departments of 3,500 counties and tens of thousands of cities.

No, start instead on stripping these overgrown boys of their falsely assumed rank that they amazingly figure they've somehow "earned". Because no matter how much some reading this may LOVE law enforcement and "LEOs", there is NO cop or deputy in all of history that has out earned GEORGE WASHINGTON!

I doubt that we can get any laws passed on this - yet - but if we can all at least be aware of this then maybe with laughter and contempt we can shame all these "four star Generals" out of this nonsense!

Worth a try!

Superpowers!

As an anarchist, I don't have the superpower that Democrats and Republicans have.

You know, that power they have to know the truth of a sexual allegation charge, just by knowing which political party the accused belongs to.

Democrats all know that women lie when they accuse a Democrat leader of sexual wrong doing.

And Republicans all know that women lie when they accuse a Republican leader of sexual wrong doing.

And me, I'm like, wow, that's eerie, how you each can tell when women you don't know lie about that stuff, and how you can know when men you don't know did or did not do something.

I mean, that's like a real superpower.

Take this latest. Some GOP guy apparently tried to sleep with a 14 year old girl. And the same Republicans who "know" that every woman who ever accused Bill were honest and pure virgins now "know" that this woman is lying, and that - as some say - she probably wanted it anyway, and that Mary was only a teenager when Joseph was with her.

Yeah, really, that's been said.

Wow. I've not been this amazed since all the Democrat Liberal Women's Equality ladies turned on Paula Jones for her stating the truth about Bill Clinton.

It's just uncanny, this infallible power of discernment all these Democrats and Republicans have.

Me, I'll just have to muddle along blind, never knowing for sure who's doing what in DC or Hollywood, because I lack that superpower.

Pictured: With her lead helmet on, Superman can't tell whether her accusations against the latest sleaze bag politician are true or false! But Republicans and Democrats can tell! Every time!!

Chickenhawks

It's funny how fragile non-vets think we vets are. They apparently imagine that we vets see an NFL player kneeling in peaceful protest and we all clutch our hearts, or cry a single tear, or some such.

We don't.

And if only they'd have ever bothered to serve the country they claim such love for, they'd realize we soldiers and veterans are a bit tougher than that.

Most of us don't really care either way whether a civilian wants to protest. They can kneel, they can sit in, they can march, they can yell. That all is, after all, the First Amendment that we agreed to defend when we swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

You know what most vets think "disrespects the flag"? Not being willing to fight for it. And while that's anyone's right, to stay safe at home building careers and families while others sign up to protect them while they do that, they don't then get to go about with their chests thrust out loudly proclaiming offense at what some do or do not do while the flag is flying.

You value that flag so much? Show me your discharge papers. Never served? Well, good news, you can fly to Syria, right now, grab a rifle from the hands of a dead soldier there and show us what you got.

Because you telling off football players for kneeling isn't doing jack all to help America. And I include our cowardly chickenhawk President and his children in that. None whom have ever served anyone but themselves.

Ban them all!

An attack by two Italian immigrant anarchist has resulted in more death and mayhem. It's past time we ended this scourge of Anarchist immigration. Even if it does bar whole peoples and nations.

These Italians do not share our religion, nor our values. How many Americans must die, how many of our vaunted traditions must be trampled upon before we get this?

Those who criticized the President's demand for a curtailment of immigration based on beliefs, where are they now? How many more must die?

OH, wait, my bad. That was back in 1918. Let's see, it's 2017, about to be 2018.

Ahh. I'm up to speed now.

An attack by an Uzbekistani immigrant ISIS member has resulted in more death and mayhem. It's past time we ended this scourge of Islamic immigration. Even if it does bar whole people and nations.

These Uzbekistanis do not share our religion, nor our values. How many Americans must die, how many of our vaunted traditions must be trampled upon before we get this?

Those who criticized the President's demand for a curtailment of immigration based on beliefs, where are they now? How many more must die?

*ahem*

Ahh, history. One can almost get bored with it's repetition. What's the old quote? "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to have Santayana quoted at them."?

Always the same old reasons for banning people. And those who believe in the American value of "innocent till proved guilty" want to bar others because they look like or share some beliefs with some few criminals.

Picture an America without Italian immigrants. Picture an America without Catholic immigrants. That is what the KKK fought for in the 1920s.

What of you today? Will you find a group to fight against Islamic immigration and immigration from "those" nations in the 2020s? They aren't as strong as they used to be, but the KKK will still welcome your aid.

Or, like some who still welcomed strangers and treated them kindly as the Bible mandated even back in the 1920s, will you also welcome the strangers who seek refuge on our shores in the coming 2020s?

As for me and my house, we will welcome the tired, the poor and the huddled masses, yearning not to be judged by a few bad apples.

For the record...

For the record, I am not opposed to that most elusive of creatures, the "good cop". Like the "honest politician", such should be praised and respected when encountered.

I am opposed to the institution of "police departments" in general, which makes sense, as being a philosophic anarchist, I am opposed to the institution of "government" as well. I would prefer to see people hire private security or take the personal responsibility to bear arms.

Or to at least conduct themselves in such a fashion that a modest "security insurance" policy would suffice.

Likewise, I'd prefer that our "leadership" in the realm of secular affairs be freely chosen. In other words, a vote would not mean that the guy with 43 out of a 100 votes got to represent 100 people. It would mean only that he spoke for those 43, in the sense of holding a limited proxy.

And that the "loser" under our current system would then hold the proxy for the other 41. With yet a third person holding proxy for the remaining 16.

There will be times, on random days or weeks or months where I'll post a lone post - or a flurry of posts - on this or that politicized issue. Many reading now have only known me during the Trump administration and so only know me for writing against Republicans, but I assure you my words were oft times as scathing for the past "Nobel Peace Prize winner" Barack Obama who drone bombed so many more children than W did.

And there will be times when I mention police brutality. But no mention of corrupt politicians or police who do wrong - or the institution of government or police - means that I dislike the individual "honest politician" and "good cop".

But - like most all you who write about the foibles and follies of liberal leaders - it does mean I dislike what some of our current leaders do. And like any of you who would write against any corrupt bureaucrat, I also don't like what some cops who cross the line do.

I rarely bother to drag it out of my comfortable bourgeois living room any more!

I would encourage the honest politicians and good cops to understand this not only about me, but about many others in the nation, who while not what are called "armchair anarchists", are at least fed up with things.

The BLM person is - like you - probably an honest joe, a good guy, wife, kids, job, the usual. Not all of them are black clad antifascists any more than all cops are black clad fascists. True, one could wish that such good BLMers disavow the violence of some of their fellow travellers, but no doubt they also wish that such good cops there are would disavow the violence of some of their fellow travellers.

And what is true of the BLM is true of every other sub-group in the nation. Tea Partiers, liberals, conservatives, whatever.

Likewise in the political realm. I've seen no difference in the IQ, the motivations or the sincerity of the Left or the Right.

If there could be one thing I'd desire, for both those who support Law Makers - the government - and Law Enforcers - the cops - it would be this:

Be honest and consistent. That a person is a cop or Congressman does not make them bad, but it does not make them good, either. Be honest in knowing that. And what a person does that is wrong, does not change because they are on the same team as you. Be consistent in knowing that.

Thirdly - and finally - be sympathetic. A lot of folks are being trampled out here. By evil liberals making it hard on the small businessman, or the evil conservatives making it hard on women or by some evil politician being hard on some good citizen.

And likewise, some bad cops go overboard, and a person pulled over for a tail light gets killed, and no number of good cops getting hurt or killed changes that in at least some cases, a good person was hurt or killed.

I could list a thousand examples of politicians on all sides and cops in every state doing things that were hurtful or destructive. And no number of honest politicians and good cops change the truth of that.

Given that, there's going to be some criticism leveled at the fields of law making and law enforcing. It's natural, and should in no way give alarm. Many of us who do criticize, also criticize grifting cab drivers, vending machine stockers who never swap out the stale stuff, and lazy co-workers. Yet we know that good examples of such exist.

Just wanted to clear that up. My wife and I joined a church that is heavily conservative, so since I friended them all on facebook, there's been a few clashes and surprises between my esoteric Thoreauian Anarchism and their more popular conservatism.

There's no harm meant. I've friends all over the political spectrum, and in many various professions. It's all good!