"My children, I've missed most of you very much." Ho' chow-mein
From time to time my efforts at being a Web-rolutionary take extreme form. This is one example of 'opps!,my bad,chic-a-boom,don't ya know! I dedicate it to the end of human ignorance, including my own.
-Double-mint Fun-
"O' my sweet poli' you look so fine-momma
wanna play twister with bubba an me
an' the boys in the wings,
on the steps, how-bout it-----
We'll cut you up some meat."
Good ol'boy Goofy
sights the backstairs,
where we should find Poli' in esterous.
"She wants it so bad
an we shouldn't deny her
our patri-fornicular creme'-inal attentions."
Bastards,Orphans of Circumstance,and Swine,
together they dine, 'oink-oink, oink-oink-oink'
pretend to divine,define,combine
profound mysogony.
The sick-fucking retards / advance the decline
while under the table the blow-jobs are fine
each candy-cock baby (portfolios not lacking)
'Grin' " the problem we make is opposed to solution."
and even sodomy shudders.
"O' my sweet Poli' , you look so fine momma
wanna play twister with bubba an me
an' the boys in the wings,
on the steps, how-bout it.
We'll cut you up some meat."
"We've invented the perfect
dog-dick solution,
a permanent check on Ir-revolution.
Now strapped to the bed
we can call you the whore
who asked for the man-hood of open-end war."
"Where for Bonein' and Bangin'
conscience forbidden
by cron-eske- bolongies
convicted we are,
'who cares' (in unlikely event of election)
be inspired by our grand "in-sir" erection.
If it please your orfical liberty's candor
we hope you'll conform to our
new double-standard."
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tales: Part II, responce to comments.
Responce to comments by Jas P. look for Spulgenine (his blog) at Google.com
An excerpt:
Jas P. said...
"Thought-provoking stuff. You're right about the use of analogy to describe problems and suggest solutions--it communicates in a way nothing else does, and engages the imagination. Can anyone deny that our failure to figure out health care is a failure of imagination?And a failure of political will, of course. It's going to take a real dismantling of conventional wisdom and cliches to make a dent in this problem. Someone's going to have to frame the debate in a new way that can compete, sound-bite-wise, on the 24-hour news cycle. All the GOP has to do is trot out the phrase "socialized medicine" and it galvanizes their reactionary base.You're looking at this in a much bigger way than what I've just described. The idea that we could get traction on a global scale when we can't do it domestically seems crazy, but maybe crazy is just what the doctor ordered. "
April 8, 2007 9:23 AM
Dear Jim, my first response to the idea of a human-oriented health care head space, shares with you a similar focus on Individual empowerment, Humanitarian concern and moving the issue to a very different arena of public attention. A new dialogue might begin like this. Here is a question, (what would the response be?) if taxpayers were asked what percentage of total personal tax they would target to a national health care system if this in no way changed the amount they paid. After this first question they then were asked , if you could target any amount up to 50% , how much would you allocate?
Answers to these inquires might suggest two things: the general overall disposition toward health care as a community rather than an ideological issue, and then indicate the value individual rights should have outside the restraining control of majority politics.
Follow this with a third question, if poverty definitions were properly raised to account for cost of living variances and a wider share of specific, personal (quality of life) standard deductions: how many would agree to a flat 20% tax rate(of which 50% could be personally ear-marked), how many would think this to be a good move in general policy?
Answers may suggest (as I believe) that our representative democracy needs the reform and updating now becoming possible at "Information Age" levels. It would represent a balance factor, setting a control and limits on any agenda of current majority interest, and lessen polarization of our social politic imposed by the varying ideals of social altruism which exist in our rights community as a whole. In addition to suggested (purse string) representational changes if individuals could target 100% of contributions above post-tax income to their legally accepted legislative programs, interest collectives at any income level could fully represent themselves on a voluntary basis with real fiscal limits. Give and take on all social fronts, a compromise of free and fair, could and should be an issue of individual cooperation and empowerment within our community sphere.
In as much as Darwinian concepts cannot fully explain social altruism's role in the emergence of a human specie dominated environment, and cannot begin to explain the existence of non-survival related cultural elements; few social scientists would deny that by hook or crook "Altruism" represents the best hope for such continuation. "Winner take all" morality is not sufficient to explain the existence of our rights community. We should no longer accept such an ethic as the reward for imposed political emminance in the way our government functions.
I can't help but chuckling when I think of what "Free Tax Assistance" could be in the future when it becomes a matter of mobilizing political resources. We could look on April 15th as expectently as Nov. 7th, when we hear the general proclaimation " The people have spoken, taken us down a notch, reminding us that though we've been elected for assumed capabilities we are and remain public servants.".
I need to continue at a later time on the intricacies of 'universal health care' if and when I find the time (sorry to proactively digress) after I guide the IRS later this week!
Scotland
trash his blog anytime , twinbluesuns on the google engine!
An excerpt:
Jas P. said...
"Thought-provoking stuff. You're right about the use of analogy to describe problems and suggest solutions--it communicates in a way nothing else does, and engages the imagination. Can anyone deny that our failure to figure out health care is a failure of imagination?And a failure of political will, of course. It's going to take a real dismantling of conventional wisdom and cliches to make a dent in this problem. Someone's going to have to frame the debate in a new way that can compete, sound-bite-wise, on the 24-hour news cycle. All the GOP has to do is trot out the phrase "socialized medicine" and it galvanizes their reactionary base.You're looking at this in a much bigger way than what I've just described. The idea that we could get traction on a global scale when we can't do it domestically seems crazy, but maybe crazy is just what the doctor ordered. "
April 8, 2007 9:23 AM
Dear Jim, my first response to the idea of a human-oriented health care head space, shares with you a similar focus on Individual empowerment, Humanitarian concern and moving the issue to a very different arena of public attention. A new dialogue might begin like this. Here is a question, (what would the response be?) if taxpayers were asked what percentage of total personal tax they would target to a national health care system if this in no way changed the amount they paid. After this first question they then were asked , if you could target any amount up to 50% , how much would you allocate?
Answers to these inquires might suggest two things: the general overall disposition toward health care as a community rather than an ideological issue, and then indicate the value individual rights should have outside the restraining control of majority politics.
Follow this with a third question, if poverty definitions were properly raised to account for cost of living variances and a wider share of specific, personal (quality of life) standard deductions: how many would agree to a flat 20% tax rate(of which 50% could be personally ear-marked), how many would think this to be a good move in general policy?
Answers may suggest (as I believe) that our representative democracy needs the reform and updating now becoming possible at "Information Age" levels. It would represent a balance factor, setting a control and limits on any agenda of current majority interest, and lessen polarization of our social politic imposed by the varying ideals of social altruism which exist in our rights community as a whole. In addition to suggested (purse string) representational changes if individuals could target 100% of contributions above post-tax income to their legally accepted legislative programs, interest collectives at any income level could fully represent themselves on a voluntary basis with real fiscal limits. Give and take on all social fronts, a compromise of free and fair, could and should be an issue of individual cooperation and empowerment within our community sphere.
In as much as Darwinian concepts cannot fully explain social altruism's role in the emergence of a human specie dominated environment, and cannot begin to explain the existence of non-survival related cultural elements; few social scientists would deny that by hook or crook "Altruism" represents the best hope for such continuation. "Winner take all" morality is not sufficient to explain the existence of our rights community. We should no longer accept such an ethic as the reward for imposed political emminance in the way our government functions.
I can't help but chuckling when I think of what "Free Tax Assistance" could be in the future when it becomes a matter of mobilizing political resources. We could look on April 15th as expectently as Nov. 7th, when we hear the general proclaimation " The people have spoken, taken us down a notch, reminding us that though we've been elected for assumed capabilities we are and remain public servants.".
I need to continue at a later time on the intricacies of 'universal health care' if and when I find the time (sorry to proactively digress) after I guide the IRS later this week!
Scotland
trash his blog anytime , twinbluesuns on the google engine!
Saturday, April 7, 2007
More Tales From the Crypt...
What if ? our present health care system was a patient, a patient that had just been rushed by ambulance to the emergency room of a hospital where we were the staff on duty. Simultaneously (without a second thought) we would stabilize the patient, treat immediately observable condition/symptoms and their possible complications, accurately identify/diagnose the cause(s) , then provide the most suitable, non-invasive complete therapy and follow up care. Of course, we would also cross our fingers.
On the other hand we could say "Sorry", turn out the lights and keep an eye open for customers that are not a fiscal liability. Current general thought now takes it for granted that some human rights are god given (life, liberty,the pursuit of happiness), but in practice this notion is historically incorrect. It has only been a matter of several centuries that the greater mass of humanity has been viewed and treated in terms of the "individual" rather than a category.
This "New" idea of human rights (a body of evolving philosophic concepts) has been embraced by a recent, still forming collective community of individuals. Even so, in present light the "the right to health care" has the position of being a very radical position by most standards. However, as we now regulate the practice of medicine by licensing, and a massive bulwark of legal /judicial control, we have created a situation of limited access to the practice of medicine by individuals for themselves and others as they see fit to consent to.
This is a prudent overseeing of qualitative standards, but it is a denial of access to those who for any reason cannot partake in the benefits of such regulation. And this represents an unfair reward to a preferred group within the rights community. A strong bottom line position holds fast to the principle that if a "rights" system creates a problem, either the system itself or the way it is applied or both, must be changed.
Analogies are not as direct as real arguments, yet I was completely serious about the approach taken in the first paragraph of this opinion. It is a general prescription for immediately dealing with these issues. I'm enough of an optimist to believe in the possibility that this issue can be thoughtfully, openly debated, that timely equitable solutions be found, and at the end of the day we will be able to say 'we did a good thing, it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
To this I would add a second analogy: Imagine what would have to be added to our present health care system if we were to immediately expand and implement it on a global scale. Talk about gearing up for a major offensive involving every aspect of health care, a real humdinger, No? . With this in mind it is perhaps easier to see that in reality our own national interest is a much more workable model of this same exercise. The realities of our present system show not only great progress toward where we could/should be as a community. It also suggest that the give and take required of all to make fair changes is more closely within our means. A hop-skip-and-jump away when compared to taking the world burden to our shoulders, even though that would be of greater merit.
In closing, I would also suggest that it may be of use to consider some of the methods we would need to adopt if we were to seriously treat the world , and implement these when we look for and choose long term solutions to health care and accessibility problems in our own sphere of affairs.
On the other hand we could say "Sorry", turn out the lights and keep an eye open for customers that are not a fiscal liability. Current general thought now takes it for granted that some human rights are god given (life, liberty,the pursuit of happiness), but in practice this notion is historically incorrect. It has only been a matter of several centuries that the greater mass of humanity has been viewed and treated in terms of the "individual" rather than a category.
This "New" idea of human rights (a body of evolving philosophic concepts) has been embraced by a recent, still forming collective community of individuals. Even so, in present light the "the right to health care" has the position of being a very radical position by most standards. However, as we now regulate the practice of medicine by licensing, and a massive bulwark of legal /judicial control, we have created a situation of limited access to the practice of medicine by individuals for themselves and others as they see fit to consent to.
This is a prudent overseeing of qualitative standards, but it is a denial of access to those who for any reason cannot partake in the benefits of such regulation. And this represents an unfair reward to a preferred group within the rights community. A strong bottom line position holds fast to the principle that if a "rights" system creates a problem, either the system itself or the way it is applied or both, must be changed.
Analogies are not as direct as real arguments, yet I was completely serious about the approach taken in the first paragraph of this opinion. It is a general prescription for immediately dealing with these issues. I'm enough of an optimist to believe in the possibility that this issue can be thoughtfully, openly debated, that timely equitable solutions be found, and at the end of the day we will be able to say 'we did a good thing, it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
To this I would add a second analogy: Imagine what would have to be added to our present health care system if we were to immediately expand and implement it on a global scale. Talk about gearing up for a major offensive involving every aspect of health care, a real humdinger, No? . With this in mind it is perhaps easier to see that in reality our own national interest is a much more workable model of this same exercise. The realities of our present system show not only great progress toward where we could/should be as a community. It also suggest that the give and take required of all to make fair changes is more closely within our means. A hop-skip-and-jump away when compared to taking the world burden to our shoulders, even though that would be of greater merit.
In closing, I would also suggest that it may be of use to consider some of the methods we would need to adopt if we were to seriously treat the world , and implement these when we look for and choose long term solutions to health care and accessibility problems in our own sphere of affairs.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Tripping Over Starlight In the Dark
I hope readers found some enjoyment in my last post. Whether it was read as fact or fiction it can be adjudged as representative of an intense individual, pathological response to perceived reality. Why pathological? my answer to this question considers ethical contradictions by juxtaposing the idea of the "pencil experiment" with and while being aware of the "Don't touch the wheel" advisory, which strips impunity from any such action.
The pencil trick proceeds on the premise of a mechanical cause/effect relationship between manipulating any material element and an irresistible permanent altering of Universal Reality. It is impossible to avoid a valid comparison of this with any other consciously directed individual action, where a result (predictable or not) is expected. Though it seems there is a great proportional difference in the sphere of influence intended by these two cases, the truth or illusory nature of either is a question of the physics of consciousness expressed through material forms. Causal constants, however distant and temporary are sought and relied upon in the same way navigators once charted geographic position, viewing light received from astral emissions which had been traveling for eons; a perceptual differential, illusory yes, yet still having an essential utility that can be said to have greatly effected world history.
My interpretation of the caveat "Don't touch the wheel" has several distinct levels of significance. I only wish to consider one at this writing. This level of reason accepts the general notion that reality has its own unified mechanical laws, which are no more or less complex than they actually are and evolve to be. It accepts that consciousness exists in a progressive variety of subjective states represented by material conditions which have original consciousness as the starting point and extension of this
out growth. As the ego sentience of this also evolves and wishes to create its own condition(s), it by its own distinct seemingly separate nature finds itself to be at some odds with the in which universal reality transpires. My hit is that the 'wheel edict" (the Great Wheel) stipulates/suggests that motion of the unified field has a natural direction and that in fact must turn itself in accordance with the laws which accept the energy to do so. Actively, the efficiency and propriety of ego sentience must be of only a certain quality to be an acceptable motivating energy toward this top-drawer end. It amounts to being and becoming what we really are,the greatest ongoing challenge of discreet liberated individual spiritual participation on a universal scale, a self guiding constantly interactive principle.
Life on the wheel can be a darkness of subjective hells ,complicated by our positioning sense of ego identification as we become non-contributing slaves; or it can be a perfect congress of amazing supra-mechanical play, which causes intrinsic patterning to naturally evolve. In my final analysis, it is not the outward form of perceived actions that can be judged of greatest merit, but the inner spiritual performance (which is beyond judgement).
My Advice:"Don't touch the Great Wheel." If you are going to pick up the pencil, move our hand in a perfect fashion,and lay it to rest the same way. It is our natural right to be the wheel itself.
"Come see me sometime: Oh' how nice,you came so soon.", amazing,considering how long it has taken us to come this far!
The pencil trick proceeds on the premise of a mechanical cause/effect relationship between manipulating any material element and an irresistible permanent altering of Universal Reality. It is impossible to avoid a valid comparison of this with any other consciously directed individual action, where a result (predictable or not) is expected. Though it seems there is a great proportional difference in the sphere of influence intended by these two cases, the truth or illusory nature of either is a question of the physics of consciousness expressed through material forms. Causal constants, however distant and temporary are sought and relied upon in the same way navigators once charted geographic position, viewing light received from astral emissions which had been traveling for eons; a perceptual differential, illusory yes, yet still having an essential utility that can be said to have greatly effected world history.
My interpretation of the caveat "Don't touch the wheel" has several distinct levels of significance. I only wish to consider one at this writing. This level of reason accepts the general notion that reality has its own unified mechanical laws, which are no more or less complex than they actually are and evolve to be. It accepts that consciousness exists in a progressive variety of subjective states represented by material conditions which have original consciousness as the starting point and extension of this
out growth. As the ego sentience of this also evolves and wishes to create its own condition(s), it by its own distinct seemingly separate nature finds itself to be at some odds with the in which universal reality transpires. My hit is that the 'wheel edict" (the Great Wheel) stipulates/suggests that motion of the unified field has a natural direction and that in fact must turn itself in accordance with the laws which accept the energy to do so. Actively, the efficiency and propriety of ego sentience must be of only a certain quality to be an acceptable motivating energy toward this top-drawer end. It amounts to being and becoming what we really are,the greatest ongoing challenge of discreet liberated individual spiritual participation on a universal scale, a self guiding constantly interactive principle.
Life on the wheel can be a darkness of subjective hells ,complicated by our positioning sense of ego identification as we become non-contributing slaves; or it can be a perfect congress of amazing supra-mechanical play, which causes intrinsic patterning to naturally evolve. In my final analysis, it is not the outward form of perceived actions that can be judged of greatest merit, but the inner spiritual performance (which is beyond judgement).
My Advice:"Don't touch the Great Wheel." If you are going to pick up the pencil, move our hand in a perfect fashion,and lay it to rest the same way. It is our natural right to be the wheel itself.
"Come see me sometime: Oh' how nice,you came so soon.", amazing,considering how long it has taken us to come this far!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Something worth being arrested for:
Like a character out of a Whole Earth Catalogue serialized story , I have the strangest feeling that these days my story is being read as I live out its reality. I 'm left wondering when someone will finally call the authorities, and that before I'm able to transport to the astral realms, a cat in a black Kevlar vest grabs my medicine bag and says "make my day" . I was advised at one time "Don't touch the wheel" , this was after I realized that it was possible to control the ' Universe' while twirling a pencil in my hand. Well, 'the wheels are broken and the axle's draggin' and I'm looking very seriously at the pencil box again. Assuming that only the present moment can be directed, is a little delicate and scary considering that any mistakes made cannot be undone. All you can do is roll out the ball of play-dough and try again. I'm not going down with out a fight so all you god-dammed assholes out there, 'Let's Play'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)