This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<livejournal>
<entry>
<itemid>46418</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-01 11:53:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-01 15:56:28</logtime>
<subject>In case you were wondering....</subject>
<event>
If you had any respect for the Clintons, you shouldn't have it right now. The odds are that now they are going to push this all the way to the convention now. Look at the sense of entitlement that Hillary supporters have. "You need to unify with us! What a sense of entitlement that that Obama supporters have. A 'real sense of disrespect." <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/1/11613/06247">Look at the fools here</a>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>46710</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-01 12:11:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-01 16:12:33</logtime>
<subject>Look at this</subject>
<event>
Here's Hillary's Jerimiah Wright, but do you think the Femi-Godwins that support Hillary will care? No, because most of the ones that are left are racist scum. <a href="http://www.brooklynron.com/2008/05/nyc-hillary-bac.html">Look at a Hillary supporter's anti-black tirade.</a>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>46891</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-02 23:49:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-03 03:51:00</logtime>
<subject>More Talk Left chicanery</subject>
<event>
So if you post pro Obama on a pro Hillary site, you're a 'Blog Clogger' and the thought police reserve the right to shut you down, whether you're hostile or whether you try to be reasonable. But its alright for Hillary supporters to post never ending nastiness about Obama on other sites. They're just being passionate for their candidate. Let them lie in their own little world...of course, this is their own little world that they broadcast for all the world to see, instead of some password protected private forum...so I'll still observe my little piranah in their fishbowl and call their behavior disgusting when it appears as such. Quotes from the head bitter lady herself. <lj-cut> Courtesy of TL reader Cream City, we have a new name for the recent influx of visitors who are clogging up the threads with multiple comments in an attempt to dominate, hijack or otherwise disrupt the conversation: Blogcloggers. Blogcloggers are not welcome here. New users are limited to 10 comments in 24 hours and they must abide by our comment rules. More below, but if you don't like the policy, as the song says, Get Over It. Drive-by snipers and blogcloggers will be erased, so don't waste your time. Once banned, they cannot come back under another name. Regular readers should ignore them and point them out by name as a site violator. This is an open thread. d McCain will never get it. [ Parent ] And as far as the GE goes (none / 0) (#105) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST I think the job of feminists is to show exactly how awful McCain is, and how much he will set this country back. Show also how insensitive Obama's campaign has been. But Obama's presidency is by far the better alternative. Hillary has given women the opportunity to be incredibly visible. Staying visible is just a matter of effort. Her demographics, her numbers with women, just beg to be organized into something effective. Republicans don't give a d*mn about women. McCain won't do jack. Obama can be influenced. [ Parent ] Disagree. Feminists have the job of supporting (5.00 / 14) (#126) by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:08 PM EST the candidate that is best for the country. Period. That person is not Obama. If you haven't figured out by now that the DNC doesn't give a hoot about women then you haven't been paying attention. I don't know how old you are but I have been around a long, long time and worked way too hard for equal rights to have someone tell me that I need to get "organized into something effective" when that "something effective" you speak of doesn't advance the cause of women. Voting for Obama is not a vote for women. It is a vote for a Chicago machine politician who will do and say anything to get elected. He is a radical who hangs around with unsavory people. He is not about women and he is not about advancing any agenda except his own. Capice? [ Parent ] I'm with you on this. They demean women through (5.00 / 5) (#164) by leis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:14:02 PM EST this whole sordid primary and then use my gender as a weapon to blackmail me to vote for them. The battle cry "what about Roe v Wade?" and my uterus is going to tell my brain to STFU and direct me to vote Obama. Not this time. They have proven themselves to be as slimy as R's this time around and I'm not buying. [ Parent ] Dems are so much about women (5.00 / 6) (#183) by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:19:56 PM EST Thats why the partial birth bill didn't pass right? That why they were so responsive when the SC declared that insurance companies were not required to carry BC pills on their formulary? It's why they've gone out of the way to address the loophole that has caused BC pills costs to go up on campuses? I why they filibustered Alito? Oh wait, they didn't do any of those things. The DNC can bite me. I'll be darne if they will manipulate me by bringing out the election year cies of how much "better" they are. They aren't. [ Parent ] Well, old men can get their Viagra paid for by (5.00 / 2) (#208) by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST the insurance companies but women have a hard time getting their birth control pills covered. Who runs the universe? All you women who vote for Obama, remember that, okay? Just think about all the little ways women are screwed in society and maybe you'll change your mind about voting for him. I'm not saying vote for McCain, I'm saying sit it out this time. Send a message. [ Parent ] I'm not voting for him (5.00 / 1) (#264) by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM EST as I've stated prior his best chance would be to beg Hillary to join his ticket. Hillay hs proven to me that she is a figher and she wouldn't allow us to bulldozed over. I'm not voting MCain either. I'll vote down ticket and write in Hill. [ Parent ] Dems suck. (5.00 / 1) (#228) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST Obviously they suck. Have they done much of anything since 2006? I guess they prevented things from getting terribly worse. I know Dems are awful, but I think the white women of the electorate now have the opportunity to flaunt their electoral strength. Overall, it's a good moment for women in general. The media is afraid of the electoral power of white women! They don't like how "difficult" they are. God knows how confused they are by WOC. Do you hold the Dem party's many real sins against Hillary? I don't. The Dems suck. Obama really sucks. But if he's the nominee, I will vote for him. Women are statistically unified this election. We have the opportunity to make our goals and concerns known. We have the data to back up our mandate. I think Hillary is not just a candidate. I think she represents the need for healthcare and a helping hand for the impoverished. I think her "wing" can perserve (sp) through this election. Millions of women agree upon this: Hillary is best. Even if she is not the nominee, we have to carry this on based on what Hillary is about; healthcare, jobs, education. [ Parent ] A large portion of the (5.00 / 2) (#246) by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:58:19 PM EST impoverished are women. Women and children make up a significant portion of the poor in this country. I see poverty and women's and children's issues as things that go hand in hand. It's one of the reasons why Hillary became my choice after Edwards dropped out. I don't see myself voting for Obama because all I'v seen is derision fom his camp for working classfolks that are in danger of sliding into poverty. I get the impression he is aligned with the pull yourselves up by your bootstraps for my taste. I want a strong, capable and responsive government. I don't see thathappening with Obama or McCain. [ Parent ] May I ask your age? (none / 0) (#237) by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:50:01 PM EST [ Parent ] Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#251) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST I am 22 going on 23. Clinton supporter. If you're searching for generational differences, I know they are there. I would be interested in hearing your take on them. Personally, McCain reminds me of the snide young men my age who would gladly say b*tch, who would happily vote for him, who would buy C*** t-shirts. [ Parent ] Disagree with your disagreement! (5.00 / 1) (#199) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:25:18 PM EST If Obama's political style is as weak as we think, it can be changed and usurped by someone else within the next 8-10 years. I think someone who calls his wife the c word, entertains a question in which Hillary is called a b**, and wants to continue a war in which women die while taking away their reproductive rights, is not the right candidate for a country ready to leap forward from Republicans' medieval view of reality. They suck. So much. I live in the South. Believe me. Plz! The DNC is a group of bumblers with no clue about how to deal with two groups of passionate supporters, each numbering 17 million. The DNC can be flipped as quickly as anything else. They're literally a ship of fools. Terry McA was the chair in 2004, I believe. Someone new will be the chair in 2010. Overall, what I'm saying is that Clinton has the female vote locked up. Statistically, women in general, even if Obama is the nominee, can look around and say, gee, we voted for Clinton? What now? This is a political opportunity. Seeing women support the first viable female candidate for the Presidency in such massive numbers should encourage women to keep organizing and making sure Obama keeps it real. We'd have to do the same (feet to the fire wise) if it was Clinton. Also, I think a strong woman (running for Prez) should see Clinton's path as that of a true trailblazer. She took a lot of hits. Think another candidate would take more? I think her effort might make the next female candidate gulp but it is certainly a worthy goal! Clinton has set the bar. The media has put that bar very, very low (and yet very, very high). But at least female pols know what they are in for. I think Clinton will be thought of much more fondly in the future than the pundits think of her now. [ Parent ] You're defending Hillary not Obama. He is not (5.00 / 5) (#215) by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST for women, get it? He's for himself only. I don't give a hoot about the next woman to come along. I care about the woman who is here now. She's the most qualified person for the presidency this year. I don't care if it's a woman, a man, or a 3-armed mutant from Chernobyl. She is the most qualified PERSON. Obama is not qualified. And I resent the implication that many of us are voting for Hillary only because she's female. [ Parent ] I get where you are coming from. I will never vote (5.00 / 4) (#225) by leis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:38:07 PM EST McCain, so that is a non-starter. I will however withhold my vote from Obama. You say that these massive numbers will force Obama to keep it real. Have you seen him do anything to support that belief? Because I have seen him brush Hillary off his shoulders and shoes. I have seen him degrade her showing of emotion. I have seen his wife blame infidelity on Hillary. I have seen him use the words; claws, periodically feeling down, and likeable enough. I have seen him refer to a female journalist as sweetie. I have NEVER seen him take a stand for women. And I don't believe that I am going to see that happen anytime soon. [ Parent ] Thanks. (none / 0) (#238) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST I think Obama obscures the Dem platform with his unity shtick. We'll see what happens in the GE. Hopefully he frickin defends us. I know about all these Obama incidents. But think about it. The guy that hugs GW so sweetly, the guy that acknowledges openly someone who calls Hillary a b*tch, the guy who stands on Republican principles...he's still so much worse. McCain's potential to doublecross us is much greater. I don't believe Obama has the same potential. Plus he really needs us now to be Pres. Puts women in a good position. [ Parent ] Where exactly is that position? Please do tell. (5.00 / 1) (#249) by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:59:03 PM EST [ Parent ] I think women, (none / 0) (#259) by lilburro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST having largely supported Hillary, being indispensable to Obama's GE success, have a lot of political leverage right now. If Obama's team is smart, they will start engaging us more than they have. We are the ones they need to win. I think this is a good, if abstract position, for women. We certainly have more power than bloggers, if I can put it that way. If Obama does not allow women to shape his platform I believe he will lose the election. And he will if he chooses a woman other than Hillary as VP. [ Parent ] I seriously believe (5.00 / 9) (#142) by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:56 PM EST that her candidacy will SCARE other women from running. She has been treated worse than any other presidential candidate I've EVER seen. And I've followed quite a number of primaries. And if Obama wins the general on this HORRENDOUSLY cruel campaign against Hillary, I don't think I'll see a female president in my lifetime. [ Parent ] </lj-cut>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>47282</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-03 13:26:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-03 17:27:02</logtime>
<subject>More fun from the Thought Police :)</subject>
<event>
This is so amusing. :) <lj-cut>eant. [ Parent ] John Edwards (1.00 / 1) (#102) by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM EST insisted he was going all the way to the convention the day before he dropped out of the race. [ Parent ] She's Hillary; not John Edwards (5.00 / 6) (#125) by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST and she's ahead in the popular vote; and robbed of pledged delegates. She has all the reason to go to the convention. [ Parent ] I don't think that would be an astute (5.00 / 1) (#196) by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST move on her campaign's part no matter how much you want to hear that from them. They may be planning to take it to the convention, but to make that declaration right at this moment might create a backlash against her with super delegates who are still uncommitted. You have to keep in mind that these candidates are juggling the task of speaking to many different audiences with very different perspectives and motivations. Supporters may want to hear rallying cries for do or die, but supers may recoil from that notion. There are clearly a lot of professional pols who are scared to death of the notion of having a brokered convention. Senator Clinton's camp is going to try to walk a very fine line of trying to keep her supporters engaged whilst trying to avoid upsetting delegates who are still up for grabs. I haven't even bothered to talk about the media's reaction, but you know that drill all too well I imagine for me to take up space discussing that audience. [ Parent ] On the contrary (none / 0) (#224) by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST It allows super delegates to defer any opinions until the convention. It frees them from the pressure of having to declare early and be subjected to harassment. Besides, by August, there will be a much clearer reading of the political winds. Then they can vote according to electability. [ Parent ] Let's just get real here... (none / 0) (#245) by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST I don't think that there is a single delegate at this point who does or will feel "free" between now and the convention no matter what anyone says. Particularly, the supers - they're the ones getting angry letters from constituents and being threatened with primary challenges etc. [ Parent ] Edwards was dropping in polling data (5.00 / 8) (#135) by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST She's actually got a robust case for herself. [ Parent ] clapclap, you are chattering (5.00 / 1) (#138) by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST and blogclogging. 10 comments in 24 hours is your limit and insults and drive-by snipes will be deleted. [ Parent ] By my count (1.00 / 1) (#167) by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST this is number 7. If I've insulted anyone, I apologize. If I'm blogclogging, I'll shut up. If I'm sniping, I'd argue that my discourse is less offensive than outrageous shouts of "OMG! Voter suppression!", but I'll try to be more civil. [ Parent ] you are looking for trouble. (5.00 / 1) (#171) by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST You might want to admit that. [ Parent ] </lj-cut>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>47406</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-04 02:32:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-04 06:33:31</logtime>
<subject>And so it is final....</subject>
<event>
Hillary Clinton has now crossed over into Rephuklycan territory. Tonight's speech and arrogance are delusional beyond all parity. Suppoters of Hillary Clinton are now Rephuklycans. You cannot support her at this point and be a rational human being. I don't look or examine FOX news because I know that those people are hopelessly delusional. Rational discourse is simply not going to happen. Hillary supporters are now in the same category in my mind. If you support Hillary Clinton after June 3, 2008, I don't want anything to do with you. I don't want to hear your opinions, I don't want to traffic your site, I just really honestly feel sad for you. I fast forward past Bush and other Rephuklycans in general. Quite frankly, I'm done going to Talkleft.com, I stopped for a while out of frustration, but went back out of amusement. After tonight, its a whole different thing. After tonight, I'm convinced of the true levels of psuedointelligence that permeates our society.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>47832</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-04 09:23:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-04 13:26:44</logtime>
<subject>And I do want to clarify</subject>
<event>
Is it possible for someone I know to be a Rephuklycan and still be my friend? Sadly yes. Friendship is more important to me than politics, but don't expect me to *EVER* talk to you about politics. The same is true of a Clinton supporter. And quite frankly, it goes beyond talking to, it goes to LISTENING to or CARING about your opinion on anything political in any way. Note, that is not Republican...that's Rephuklycan. To reiterate the definition, that is basically anyone who thinks that Bush is still a good president. It's a pretty simple definition. Same thing with Hillarything supporters. Prior to last night, you totally get slack. If you still think she's worthy of any office, including dog catcher, you're a Rephuklycan. Edit: Strike "any office" and replace that with "President."
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>48076</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-05 10:42:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-05 14:43:19</logtime>
<subject>Hope Dares Eternal</subject>
<event>
By Redwin Tursor So I’m sitting under the stadium Acting as a security guard I’m doing my part But I’m not really in the crowd. There is cheering above me. I can hear it As I walk amongst the empty trailers The media uses them When they’re not focused On the main event. I’m still in the crowd But I’m not of the crowd. So I turn it on Even though I’m just as cynical As I ever was. And there is the man Letting people know he’s won. And his speech is magnanimous. I don’t see the pride That so many others call snobbery. To me it is gracious And generous And inspiring. And then I see the redhead In the back, Just under The Crappy Construction Paper ‘Impromptu’ CHANGE sign Hey I know her. That’s my wife. Her blue eyes hold all the life That they ever did. She didn’t drink kool aid She has Hope. Not the choking on car fumes Self imposed echo chamber Of pretending that the world Is the way you want it to be, But the real deal. Hope. Sometimes you forget about it Down under the stadium. Hope hurts sometimes. No. Let down hurts. So hope can be a dangerous thing to have. But Hope is also dangerous. I hear another Lady stir She’s long been forgotten. She lifts her torch And like a lions roar Her lantern shines across the Atlantic. She’s down She’s out The world has called. She’s an empire in decline. Not even really knowing That to call her an empire In the first place Shows that you never really knew her at all. She wasn’t gone She was just sleeping Poisoned by a million cells That gave in to their darker natures But Hope is the vaccine That panacea cure Wakening the Giant Who shall shake the earth With righteous fury. You haven’t seen her at her best In a very long time. But you’re going to. We’re not there yet But Hope is curing those pieces of her Parts of her Bits and Bones Muscles in Factories Brains, And oh boy does she have a lot of brains Synapses churning Just you wait Just you watch The lady is going to be free.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>48368</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-07 13:31:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-07 17:37:28</logtime>
<subject>My role as Warden</subject>
<event>
For me, this campaign has not been about this election. It wasn't so much that I thought it was over; it certainly isn't. It is merely that I try to plan several moves ahead, and while the Rephuklycans are trying to help McCain win, they're really building up for 2010...the true conspiracy knows they're largely beaten (even if McCain wins) and they're going to be going to ground and burrowing, like ticks. They want another 1994 where they won the house after Clinton won in 1992. I intend to join an organization that is anticipating this as well, well ahead of time and move to crush the vermin and keep them crushed. And if such an organization does not exist, then help found one. This is not a win-it-once kind of fight. This is the kind of fight that will go on for 20-40 years and quite possibly FOREVER. Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty. I say this because as emotional and as passionate as I can get sometimes, passion flares and fades. Emotions, except for very powerful ones (such as people who have lost loved ones in Iraq) are short lived. It is, quite frankly, one of the tools in the Dark Arsenal of the Enemy. Thus reason must be my watchword and my creed. It is by reason that I must measure and pace my actions to the extent that I can. I say all this because while I despise many actions taken by Clinton, her speech today finally did what she should have done two or three months ago. I will still oppose them from ever running for president, but not because I am angry at things she has done now, for such anger is toxic, but because of the rational understanding that aristocratic dynasties are bad for America. We must never have another W. We got lucky. Barely. And yes, I know it seems that's an understatement, but hither to now it could have been worse. It may be worse. An animal is at its most vicious when cornered and W insults most animals. In other words muttermuttermutter Clinton grumblegrumblegrumble good speech muttermuttermutter all happy now grumblemutter work together mutter muttermumble humph.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>48589</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-19 17:55:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-19 22:03:33</logtime>
<subject>Good Job, Pelosi</subject>
<event>
Nika Luz is typing this at my request. I wanted to enter this while I still remembered. But to be kind to her, I'll keep this short. Basically, Nancy Pelosi has screwed the pooch and let George W. Bush off the hook for warrant-less wire-tapping, so I have donated $40 to Cindy Sheehan (although she's a complete loon) who is running against her. Feel free to join me.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>48831</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-24 08:24:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-24 12:34:32</logtime>
<subject>LDS Messing around in politics again</subject>
<event>
I originally tried to find a nice church site that talked about <a href="http://www.whymormons.net/2008/06/lifting-ban-in-1969.html">this</a> but then I thought, why bother? I don't care....by LDS Theology, there is no such thing as Neutral Ground, you either do what the Prophet tells you, or you don't. Any understanding or thoughts to the contrary is a flawed understanding of LDS theology. I'd show you references, but again, I don't care. Anyway, the original link talks about the circumstances leading to the LDS priesthood ban on Black's having the priesthood. The general gist in the church is that it was a mistake of 'men', but here's the thing...it had the practical FORCE of a divine command. Now Thomas S. Monson (the guy that is always talking about how cool Germans were during WWII and the need to understand that they were people too (a legitimate point until one reads the Church's stance on Hitler prior to WWII...a time in which Mr. Monson was alive btw....)) has decreed that it is the divine mandate of heaven that all LDS church members support the California constitutional ban on gay marriage. I don't know about you, but even though I'm not exactly in the front line of Pride parades, I felt just....DIRTY writing that letter to 'urge our political leaders' to vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage...even then I tried to put 'loop holes' in there saying things like 'At the behest of my ecclesiastical leaders' blahblahblah. It was an evil act then and I knew it. I might not have admitted it consciously, but the whole thing felt exactly like the Church's ban on African American's having the priesthood in 1969. Mark my words. 30 years from now, this act by Mr. Monson will be regarded as an act 'of men' not divinely inspired at all.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>48958</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-25 00:50:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-25 04:52:38</logtime>
<subject>
I now never underestimate my disgust, distrust or disdain for the human race
</subject>
<event>
So now, after Obama has finally won the nomination, there are a bunch of clowns planning riots and protests against the very person who is going to help achieve most of their goals. Ladies and gentlemen I give you <a href="http://dcdsdcdomeshadows.blogspot.com/2008/06/re-create-68-oppose-dnc-in-denver.html">Recreate 68</a>. A more spoiled and rotten bunch of brats there never was. Who do they hope to convince with their little tantrums? Certainly not me. People accuse Obama of being an Elitist...No, *I* am now an elitist due to morons like this. I am starting to think the Butterfly Ballot was a good idea because it reduced the power of the stupid.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>49269</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-25 09:24:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-25 13:52:03</logtime>
<subject>Are we wrong generally?</subject>
<event>
Two very common questions I have seen asked by my fellow non trogledytes are "What a curious evolutionary adaptation compassion is, for the ability to self sacrifice offers no evolutionary advantage." And the assumption that religions were created by primitive minds to answer questions about the unknown that advanced human intelligence could comprehend, but could not answer such as "Where do I go after I die", "What is my purpose in life" and "Where was I before I lived in this world?" I offer another view. What if, originally, the basic human genetic disposition was to be not just primitive and savage, as we often see Cavemen depicted, but psychotic. What if man in his original state had intelligence, but absolutely no empathy whatsoever. My father recently commented at our Family Reunion that one thing that affirmed his belief in the preexistance was how early Children got personalities, whereas I argue that this affirmed my belief that much (but certainly not all) of our personality is determined genetically. Let us then turn back the pages to our hypothetical world of genetic sociopaths. Think of all the creative things that bad people can do with fire. Now imagine the entire human race like that. This world is kind of like "The Happening" only instead of being psychotically compelled to kill yourself you are compelled to kill anything not in your clan (obviously you have to recognize your clan or the human race wouldn't exist at all.) What if 'mitochondrial eve' was a mutant who actually had that rarest of traits, Empathy. What if it wasn't the ice age that nearly killed humans off, but their psychotic tendancies? Furthermore, in true evolutionary fashion, Empathy was a survival trait against our own intelligence. We know through DNA studies that there have been at least a few times in which human beings were nearly wiped out. We've assumed nature did this but I argue that there is no force known and observable in nature better at extinguishing entire species that Human beings. So now we come to the question of religion. One statement often made is that almost all religions elicit compassion in their teachings (despite the trends of people within that religion to virtually ignore said compassion or empathy when it is convenient for them). What if this is by design? The wise understand that those in the past were *NOT* less intelligent than us, they merely did not have the body of knowledge and secrets that we do today. What if the Empathy gene was at first only partially passed through Mitochondrial eve? I look around today and see 20% who are the true carriers and up to 50% who might be partial carriers. Around 30% of the population seems to have a severely stunted Empathy gene. Now, sometimes the Empathy gene can be on so high that the individual looses the ability to fight for their survival (ie pacifism or essential pacifism) as manifested by elements of otherwise good traits in the brain that mutate far in excess of their natural state, such as the 'idiot savante' who can remember anything but is incapable of washing their clothes. Total and complete pacifism as a dominant trait would have us all eaten by bears. Any way, back to the past. Look at the dog vs. the wolf. Thousands of years of controlled breeding has produced an animal that is a loving, safe and loyal companion. That isn't to say wolves are 'evil' but I think any dog owner understands there is a big difference between a dog and a wolf. The other half of our make up and personalities comes from the memetic amalgamation of our identities. If we accept the postulate that memes are living things in the sense of viruses in that they can transfer, mutate and adapt by traveling through their medium (human beings and language) then we can potentially infer by reverse engineering that originally these memes were very primitive as well. What if religion was not merely an 'accident' but originally created by a very smart dominant empathy person to control the more vile and psychotic tendancies of the quasi-empathy gene carriers? What if the only thing between us and a race of thirty percent empathy stunted folk is the fact that the religion meme was created to hold them and their deeply suppressed psychotic tendencies in check? What if The "elites" are the ones that give us the technology to keep our civilization running, to keep those with low empathy genes and more primitive minds from destroying us and destroying everything that thousands of years have worked for? The "elites" are all that stands between us and people like Recreate68, whose belief/meme constructs have mutated so radically that they are incapable of perceiving reality around them in their desire to bring all society down around them. They are (literally) composed of anarchists as well as fanatical leftists who are willing to use anarchists to advance their agenda as if one could control a herd of ebola. God help us all. Literally.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>49619</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-25 13:56:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-25 17:58:05</logtime>
<subject>Ralph, in his wisdom, speaks</subject>
<event>
Ah yes, Ralph Nader. Quixotic crusader for seat belts. Misunderstood hero to the downtrodden anarchist/Godwinist masses. Electable Third party alternative. <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/">Narcisistic Racist.</a>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>49711</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-25 22:51:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-26 03:00:26</logtime>
<subject>The Democrats</subject>
<event>
Lest anyone think I have unmitigating loyalty to any ideal, person or party.... Let me clarify my utter disgust at the Senate voting 80-15 to decide that the 4th Amendment to the constitution doesn't mean anything. I think that the Democratic party has a lot of well meaning people in it, but sometimes they're utterly stupid. But they happen to be utterly stupid people who hold the levers of power. I'm all for a system in which a third party has power. I'll vote for or sign for anything I think helps give them (collectively) a chance at making things better, but I'm not going to simply vote for a Third Party Just Because, partially because I think ALL parties are anathema, and partially because there is no party that represents all of my ideas, but mostly because there are no third parties that I see that seem to take the idea of WINNING really seriously. The libertarians are getting closer this year, I'll be watching them. A world where the big two were Libertarians vs Democrats would be a better one than the party of Bush. I also want to clarify a statement I made to someone a while ago, "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid." Obviously there are stupid people who agree with me on some things, and there are very very smart people who disagree with me on many things..... But there is a special kind of stupid, and there are certain basic fundamental things that are beyond stupidity. One of them is loyalty to Bush at any cost. Either your principals are more important to you or loyalty to your leader/buddy is more important to you. At this point, if you support Bush, you are either willfully ignorant of his actions or you ARE stupid. We live in a world where emotions matter more than reason. I wish this were not so. Whenever possible, I shall use Reason to convince, but I will not hesitate to use statements such as "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid" to get the point across. "Ah!" say those who disagree with me but agree with me, "You will convince no one with these arguments!" "Ah!" I say, "You've finally got the point."
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>50051</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-26 00:36:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-26 04:42:06</logtime>
<subject>Why Washington is my Hero</subject>
<event>
1)He was the only president we ever had who wasn't in a political party. 2)He had the guts to give up power after only two terms. When he could have been king. Because of him we live in a free nation, though we squander just a little bit of it every day, but what can you do? The smartest most charismatic politician in 40 years (arguably 60, arguably 100) has just deficated on the US Constitution. Barack Obama was one of those 80 who voted to grant immunity to the telecomm companies, thus helping Bush cover his trail and violate the law and the 4th amendment to the constitution. He did this for a measly 10 house votes that were in jeapardy from Republican attack on National Security this election which is the same reason N. Pelosi did it. There is no reasonable predictive analysis that says the democrats won't control the house this year; so is 10 really worth it? I understand the need for political compromise. I bought the excuse on the rejecting public funds....you don't choose 85 million vs 250 million when your donors are small and the stakes are this high. But this? The man was President of the Harvard Law review. He understands the @#$@#$ constitution. With Bush, it started with a footnote in a book before he was elected that said he MIGHT have used Cocain that Rove made disappear.... With Obama, it started with the vote on this bill. The man has to earn my respect back. I'll probably still vote for him, but it will be with roughly the same enthusiasm I voted for Kerry the Ent in 2004. In other words, good luck with that.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>50222</itemid>
<eventtime>2008-06-30 11:25:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2008-06-30 15:30:04</logtime>
<subject>Zimbawe Hailed as Model for Democracy</subject>
<event>
In case you haven't been following international politics lately, Robert Mugabe stands out among African dictators in that his extremely poor management policies have cause rampant inflation for his people who are now starving to death. The last election was won by another guy who wanted to institute democracy but there was a 'runoff' wherein for a solid month Mugabe's people raped, pillaged, murdered and burned people who voted for the opposition. Finally, saying that there couldn't be a fair election under these conditions, and hoping to spare people working in his campaign from getting killed, he withdrew. Mugabe ran anyway, and more importantly, his people have begun hunting down and beating people who didn't vote for him. So what does the African Union do? <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4242895.ece">Why declare Mugage a Hero of course!</a> Bear in mind that the United Nations General Assembly has a good chunk of African and Middle Eastern Nations that laugh at the concept of Western Liberal Democracy. I've defended the UN before in the past as a method for peace, but belonging to any organization that gives equal weight to nations that do this kind of thing is just ridiculous. And yes, things are bad here. We have corruption here, but its not even the same scale. Oh, speaking of which, as another mark of the Apocalypse, rumor has it that John McCain is considering picking Mitt Romney as VP.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
</livejournal>
No comments:
Post a Comment