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.