Right-wing @ MindSay 
Welcome aboard mate.
Not much original about me 'cause I've been here at Mindsay for a while and 'round and 'bout many parts for more 'en half-dozen decades doin' different stuff jes tryin' ta stay alive runnin' from some and some sometins and searchin' for sum others. Ya noe?
Now ya kin find sum answers here I 'spect. But ya shudent doen be ah'sprised at what dey mite be. I mean sum of em. Da questions sumtimes takes a liddle figerrin' to. I learnt a heap here from meny a folk yunger an me. Yunger an you two also teched me a lot here to. Mebbie ya will like here. I thin' ya can and hope ya will.
Now my parts, still in pretty good shape, reside, rest, react, rust and restore in Qingdao on the coast of China while I regularly repulse and rile restive retrograde religious right-wing redneck Republican reprobates rejoice-fully.
If'n ya ever git a good answer to the "juicy factor" item, please let me noe. Still tryin' ta figure dat one two. Sincerely, David, namaste
I've always been fascinated by different political ideologies, trying to understand why we choose them. Undoubtedly, the beliefs of our parents, peers, teachers, and other notable figures have a great influence during our adolescence, but after a while we develop our own ideas, and our own individual world views.
So, what leads one to be an anarchist, or a conservative, or a moderate, or a libertarian? Surely, above and beyond our upbringings, our personalities must play a large factor in this.
I guess there's nobody I know better than myself, so I make a good example for this purpose. I cared little for politics until the age of about 14 or 15. I came from a fairly politically conservative environment - my Mum fits pretty well in the mould of a conservative christian liberal/national voter, while my Dad leans further to the right as a former One Nation supporter, and assisted in the local campaign back in 1998, somewhat to my Mum's dismay.
At the time when I started exploring political ideas, I was introduced to a very black and white picture of right and left - an 'us' of conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, Republicans, John Howard and Andrew Bolt, and a 'them' of Labor, the Greens, pro-choicers and Karl Marx.
However, soon enough my (practically non-existent, anyhow) 'faith' in Christianity had disappeared, and with it went a lot of my preconceived views. Why exactly, was it wrong for people to be in same-sex relationships? Was the death penalty really an appropriate method of punishment? I still very much identified myself as a conservative, but gradually, I found myself identifying less and less with traditional conservative ideas.
Now I find myself, for all intents and purposes, a centrist - whatever that means. I still hold strong views on some subjects that might seem appropriate for a conservative (such as abortion), but I no longer see myself as having any partisan identifications, nor do I (in my own mind, or through my beliefs) identify myself as a conservative or a right-winger. Indeed, rather than the 'us' or 'them' world of my early teenage years, I now see many, many arguments, all deserving of and requiring consideration. I also see that not everybody really fits within such easily definable moulds such as 'left' or 'right', but if they do, they often align themselves with a specific ideology or political party.
So then, why is it that such people choose these sides to place themselves on? Is it, as I mused a few years back, a division between idealism and realism? Or, as those on the left might counter, a division between selflessness and selfishness?
Of course, I no longer believe it to be nearly that simple. However, I do believe that there must be simple human traits, qualities and emotions that are more dominant on either side of politics. Returning to myself - I know that my journey from a conservative to a moderate has been accompanied with a growth in experience, an increased thirst for knowledge and analysis, and perhaps most importantly, large doses of skepticism and cynicism. Are these traits more related to the 'left-wing', and is this a trend that will continue until I directly associate myself with the left side of politics, or is this as 'left' as I'm ever going to get (keeping in mind the famous Churchill quote, "If you are not a liberal by age 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no brain")? I honestly don't know, but all I know right now is that I avoid such labels and share an equal skepticism for both sides of politics.
Of course, another factor to consider is that perceptions of left and right change dramatically over time. A few centuries ago, Britain's right/left divide seems to have been quite squarely centred on the issue of monarchy, and yet in the last decade, democracy has been the catch-cry of America's neo-conservatives. Similarly, issues such as women's suffrage and racial equality were the domain of radicals once upon a time, but now are concepts generally accepted by all but the fringes of society.
There's the saying that all types make a world, and I have considered many times in the past that perhaps a left and a right are necessary in any functioning society - a right (forgive the blatant stereotyping for a second) to ensure the smooth running and structural enforcement of the society, and a left to provide its soul, its art, and its ability to progress. Of course, I could be completely wrong, or attributing qualities that are actually present on either side of politics.
In the end, however, I cannot see the left/right divide as a good thing. Frankly, I see it as, just like religion, culture, language and race, yet another way for people to isolate themselves in small groups. It is a shame that these 'us and them' mentalities emerge, when really, politics and philosophy should be areas that encourage free, frank and honest discussion with the goal of understanding. I hope that that is how I spend the remainder of my life - not a mouthpiece for another person's beliefs, or a devotee of a preconceived ideology. Rather, I want to always be open to any argument, any debate, and any opinion - not being conservative or liberal, tory or whig, republican or democrat, right or left. Just me.
Well, apparently quite a bit.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention now reports, from 1990 to 2003, the suicide rate fell by more than 28 percent, from 9.48 to 6.78 per 100,000 among those between ages 10 and 24.
Basically, 1992 to 2000 were the Clinton years and the young could relate to someone who had their interests at heart. How easy for the young to relate to a sexually active, and emotionally open leadership.
Keep in mind that the latter part of the first Bush years were marked by the presence of Barbara Bush – everyone’s sweet grandmother.
Then came the current Bush era. First the Stock market folded; and it appears, with the sub-prime, ripoff the struggling poor, bubble bursting and the nation hemorrhaging debt obligations to foreign nations, the market is ready to tank before Bush exits (stage right-wing).
The prospect of no jobs, except one with the military and the prospect of being killed, maimed, mutilated, or mentally destroyed before any prospect of reaching thirty, is sufficient to ensure that suicides will increase.
If we add to that the very visible rejection of governmental mental care for those who serve; and the equally visible rejection of care for the families of those who serve, the future is dismal.
Bush has been very forceful in his assertion that those who do work, and are able to contribute to their futures through Social Security contributions, will receive nothing back.
Bush has clearly, and specifically, told the young that they will be screwed and that their world, should they select to live until it is theirs, is a place far worse than any their parents and grandparents knew.
The GOP is excellent at telling people they have no future. What do they offer? Right-wing evangelical salvation for those who are “good” and do as they are told by the Robertson-Farwell style demigods.
Of course, they look at these god want-a-be types and see people who live by the sword, hence shall die by it (no salvation there); people who cheat on their wives while screaming family values (no salvation there); people who refuse to help the sick, but scream they follow the teachings of one who specifically said the sick must be helped (no salvation there); those who turn their backs on their neighbors, especially when those neighbors are hard working immigrants seeking a better life (no salvation there either).
Everywhere you turn, you find a Right-winger screaming lies about what they stand for. They have never read, never comprehended, the contents of that which they call their Book, and the teachings of the man they claim is their savior.
Had they read the book, they would know that “Ye shall know them by their works” overrides the words and reveals the truth.
Find a reason to kill the innocent; allow the guilty to live in peace and safety. Therein will you find the creed of the Right-wing Conservative and its associated Evangelical Movement.
Kill followers of Islam before anyone heeds, or catches on to, the fact that they follow a doctrine which places that same savior as the head of an army which will destroy the Evangelicals.
Granted, the evils of mankind are not restricted to one belief system. If it were, we would not see Bush and Bin Laden working hand-in-hand to make way for global destruction and chaos. The young see it and they are opting out in the only way they know, the only way that is exclusively in their power, they are checking out of life.
Look for suicide rates to increase, not only among the young, but among all age groups. The old will select a fast death over the slow death which is being promoted through the denial of real healthcare to ALL who need it. Heed this prediction; for it is a time for prophecy. _____________________________________________________
Date Line July 20, 2007
We can set aside the religious tradition. We can also set aside the fact that the physical act of circumcision is also the symbolic Christian name (St. Paul’s Doctrine of Salvation by Faith or Law) for the Laws of Moses. We can, if we are of the Right-wing idiot brigade.
Reality check! How do we set aside the very real medical evidence that circumcision is a major defense against the spreading of sexually transmitted disease? How do we justify exposing children and newer generations to widespread epidemics?
Until the 1960's, nearly ninety (90%) percent of American males were circumcised. During the period in which the Right-wing rose to power, and the Evangelical Fundamentalists became a political force, that number has dropped to fifty-seven (57%) percent and the spread of STD’s has grown dramatically.
Remember, the doctrine of those who would destroy you and the land you live in: Do the most harm to the most people! This doctrine is now infiltrating the Jewish community, where circumcision remains a near universal practice.
“Near universal” because there are always a few who had both their heritage and their children enough to see them exposed to disease. It is a harsh reality, even ion the days of Moses, we are told there were those who did not mark their doorposts to keep away the Angel of Death.
Jewish Law, as you might have read in other postings, is a medical text for the wise. The following of the laws was what kept Jewish communities free of the plagues which, during the sixteenth and into the seventh century, killed millions of those who set aside the law in favor of a Doctrine of Faith.
As any who has read scripture knows, the Doctrine of Faith, as set down by St. Paul, forbids the adoption of any of the 613 laws which constitute the Circumcision (Laws of Moses). Any who have read Leviticus are aware that the simple act of washing is a repeated law.
St. Paul set up an interesting Catch-22 for any who were his nineteenth century followers. For those before the coming of indoor water and central heating, being told to avoid washing was the relief of a burden.
It is worth noting that the Romans had indoor plumbing based upon the use of lead pipe. Of course this contributed to lead poisoning and the insanity which resulted in them discarding plumbing in favor of faith as dictated by Paul, rather than based on The Rock designated by Jesus. But who cares about that.
The point today is that history is clear. The Circumcision, the physical act and the related laws, promote human health and well-being. It is therefore important that these be ended by any society which worships disease and its spread.
Look at all the nations which do not practice circumcision. Take a very good look at them.
Those with well financed cradle-to-grave universal health care have STD epidemics which are easily identified and contained. Those nations without such care have major infection rates which are killing, debilitating significant of their societies.
America, as promoted and portrayed by the Right-wing, is a nation which lives by the sword. It is a nation which cares very little for its young. It is a nation which cuts support programs in favor of military conflicts of choice intended to destabilize geographic regions.
The most harm to the most people. The Right-wing doctrine which has controlled our nation for over a quarter century has begun to attack basic health and welfare issues among those who also consider them a tenet of faith and belief. It has been done, Paul did it, people died.
_____________________________________________________
Date Line July 6, 2007
IRAN! Bush accuses it of wanting nuclear capabilities for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. Bush, of course, has an ideal track record of assertions: he has yet to be correct on anything.
Iran, one of the world leaders in oil production, has imposed gasoline rationing. Iran does no produce its own gasoline; thus it cannot hope to have a mechanized military capability of any meaning other than defensive.
Iran, one of the world leaders in oil production, has declared it is going to promote dual usage, hybrid, vehicles. Apparently, Iran�s leadership sees no long-term future in gasoline production.
Iran, one of the world leaders in oil production, wants nuclear power, nuclear electric production capacity; Iran, one of the world leaders in oil production, wants hybrid, fuel efficient vehicles.
There is only one rational conclusion, Iran, one of the world leaders in oil production, is attempting to free its oil reserves for export in a period which promises much higher energy prices.
What are the possible reasons for a nation which boasts forty CENT per gallon gasoline to be looking to cut its consumption?
Could it be the Iranians foreseeing a collapse of domestic production throughout the Middle East? Would that require an expansion of American disruption of Middle East oil production; we have witness this in Iran, under our oil industry President and Administration.
Could it be the Iranians foreseeing the reality behind persistent reports, denied by the Bush Administration, that global reserves are depleting at a much higher than anticipated rate?
Could it be the Iranians foresee a a profit in selling carbon credits to the richer, very wasteful, nations? America would certainly be their primary market.
Whenever a nation behaves contrary to rational understanding, it is time to check what we are basing our understanding upon. To date, we have based our actions and understanding on the Evangelical concept of reality.
The Evangelicals promote a literal reading of a "divine" document, the authors of which view as fluid.
Evangelicals fail to adhere to any of precepts and commandments they assert should be taken literally. In fact, as I have previously pointed out, Evangelicals follow the teachings of one whose real purpose might well have been their self-annihilation.
The choice made is between superstitious "faith" and unsupported "belief", or three elements of the divine spirit: "Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding." Do we live by assertion, or by reality?
Upon what basis have we built society? Do we rely upon witch trials, burning people at the stake, inquisition through torture, and all the other Evangelical, Right-wing, derived techniques? Certainly the Bush Administration believes we should; but they get everything wrong.
It is time that we study reality. It is time we moved in the direction of universal peace and government. No need for a single sovereign state; rather a union of sovereign states, a Global Union of States.
That is, in essence, the prediction which the Evangelicals say should be taken literally. Why are they working against it? Why are they working for a Global Destruction of States? Why do they persist in their desire for inflicting the most harm on the most people?
Evangelicals are interesting. Osama Bin Laden is clearly an Islamic Evangelical with the same agenda as those Christian Evangelicals who hold that Mormons and Catholics are not Christians. The problem, of course, is the one which Gandhi pointed out: it's a great religion, too bad nobody practices it.
Islam is a great religion, but once again we have the problem that none follow the Koran teachings; most simply find the hate passages and follow those. It is no wonder that the Khazar King, given the option of selecting a religion for his people, rejected both the Islamic and Christian faiths. Why follow followers, when you can follow the one they both acknowledge as the true leader.
SIGH, once again, drifted from the subject. Look to the small mentions in the news. Ask the question "WHY?" And continue to ask it until you have an answer which works.
Einstein did not necessarily like the answers Relativity provided; it is clear that he ignored many subsequent findings in his search for that one simple formula which would provide causality. Causality, reality, are often difficult; one truth, the Right-wing causes of the problems.
_____________________________________________________
FOOTNOTE Observation: Einstein had a series problem with Quantum Physics; most reality based physicists acknowledge Quantum probabilities are a rational approach to reality. What they fail to acknowledge, what Einstein should have realized, is that Quantum Physics is relative in the most amusing sense.
To any seeking a solution to the probabilities which comprise the basis of Quantum Physics: Their perspective is the problem with the quest for any Unified Field Theorem.
Quantum Physicists view the universe relatively, they view reality relative to the perspective of the observer, rather than the perspective of the particle being observed.
Reality, planets and such, are observed in their own right. Nuclear particles must be deduced and therefore they cannot be observed until the are observed. The observer has the problem of guessing when and where a particle will be at any moment of observation; hence it is a science based upon probabilities.
Quantum Physicists are the Evangelicals physical science.
_____________________________________________________
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]