End of government

BLM:90 WHM:90 SMN:90 THF:90 WAR:90 DRK:90 RNG:90 PLD:90

OverheardA Democrat in a suit was talking to a Republican dressed in a T-shirt and a gold chain worth probably the same as the other's entire outfit and they asked each other what they were doing at the voting booth after swearing an oath to tell the truth.

Democrat: I am here to vote Democrat.

Republican: I am here for your wallet and then I am going to vote for the one that spent the most money to earn my vote.

You know even in the old Rocky movie you saw some of this mentality. Rocky was like the USA... already the champion, raising a family,  "softening" as a fighter, and given only "soft" candidates to fight by his manager.   You wonder at times if drug-dealers and terrorists all don't have Mr. T as their deity of choice because most of what was said in the movie tends to ring true as rhetoric for these "Republican" leaders.

"you should've NEVER came back"

"I will destroy any man who tries to take what I got"

"Prediction?.... Pain"

It was probably his example of wearing an effuse amount of chains around his neck that started the trend. I remember seeing the movie as a young teenager and "rocking" with Rocky. That was one of the best movies to watch as a youngster and surprisingly we didn't learn any curse words from it. It's sad that Mr. T didn't remain popular at least as a TV anti-hero. Even today, if he were to be on a TV show, he would "scare" people into believing that not every young black drug-dealer dies young and honestly the fatter the better in his case. After all a good show not only has "Christopher Reeve" level charisma for the hero, but should have Mr.T level anti-charisma from the anti-hero. This is the engine of a good movie or show. Think of pistons in an engine. If I feel all the range emotions it's a good movie but the feeling at the end is sometimes just confused. It's much better to just take the hero and generate hate for his rival and just keep it simple. Up and down equals entertainment.

I am watching CSPAN again and Ruth Bader was on and talking about her time on the bench of the Supreme Court and answered some questions relevant to women in the role. I was loving it because she is like many truly intelligent people that take the time to talk slowly and think very deliberately. She is like someone that is creating a speech while she talks but you can bet that all her words are intended as they were spoken.  But she said something during her interview that shook me. 

She said that the women who have come after her were much "tougher" than she was.  

Critical thinking is the act of bringing up arguments enough to fully address an issue so that all can use those arguments to decide for themselves on the issue and then the decision can be made by taking a vote.  

Tough people should not be in a seat of power, they should not be public servants, they should not be considered intellectual.   Tough is the anti-thesis of intellect. If I spend the rest of my life getting even with people that have wronged me, I will have divested myself of intellect.   In every argument, someone's land is being taken, someone's respect is being challenged, someone's money is being made less efficient.

Jesus is the ultimate intellectual. Remember in the movie "NEXT" there is a prophet played by Nicholas Cage. I always imagine these movies are about me. He can predict the future but only if he concentrates so, like Superman, the first weakness is that he can't do more than one thing at a time.  

So in the movie he has touched someone, I can't remember the movie exactly just now, and they give him the future image of his girlfriend being blown up and also of the end of the world. 

But he hasn't met this girlfriend yet.

So he knows that somehow he must get this girl to like him. She is woo haw fine-looking Jessica Biel back when she was like size DD dangerous don't-hit-me-with-those young.  He has seen her death because people working against him find out that the  government value him and want him to predict their moves.  So they capture her later on and eventually blow her up because he doesn't change sides and obviously if you have special powers, people need that.   And if they can't have that, then noone gonna have it.  

Anyways, getting back to how he meets her, he is in this diner and sees her for the first time and has to decide how to get her to follow him. Now once he talks to her it's over, he can't change the future after it has happened and if he does this the wrong way then a different future occurs. But he has supreme intellect so he can do a splash of scenarios before he has to commit.  So later on her abusive boyfriend comes in. This should be easy for him, right, because he knows what her boyfriend is going to do, so the fight will be easy.

So he does some different versions of the fight and he wins them all but in none of them does she end up going with him. Over and over she gets up and leaves and even though being with her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend is bad, there is no way that she is going to ride off with a stranger that is violent even in self-defense.

So the next scene is the defining moment of genius from the movie. His words, "incoming". That is the only way to make a compromise or to co-exist or to engender empathy is to take the hit.   In the movie she feels sorry that her boyfriend hits him and she goes off with him and his play of letting him punch him by "turning the other cheek" pays off.

Jesus was a genius. In fact you can say that everyone that is tough, is not like Jesus. By listening to true intellectuals like lawyers and judges you hear people that are NOT tough. That's why people have such contempt for actors in politics because they can't analyze like a lawyer can.

But you know if we were going to get told that we are going to war because the rich people wanna go and we are all gonna have to just agree and take it because that's why you ain't got a law degree cuz only rich people get them, well then you might as well have an actor cuz then it doesn't sound so bad. 

If it was me I would put Jesse Ventura as president. Because when it's not funny anymore, that's when we need comedy relief.  I would have him get married to Nancy Pelosi, the democrat, and then I would have a talk show hosted by his maid who is pregnant who loves to carry a mini-gun and say "Ole painless is waitin'".   Because when you can't trust the intellectuals, you might as well make it entertaining. 

So many times I have heard people of the cloth, aka lawyers.  Lawyers are people of the cloth because they should be in the "business" of serving the public. Lawyers should BELIEVE all men are equal until proven guilty. When I step into a courtroom, I should see a cross next to the constitution next to the American Eagle next to the flag. There is a reason for having "contempt" charges because when you work for the law, then you are a man of the cloth. You should be above suspicion, above lying, above getting paid.

Sidetracked, so many times I have heard people of the cloth say things that do not do the public... service. If they are going to incite criminal acts, question people before they have their chance in court (like for example have you been drinking), speak for the laws so that the judge doesn't have to decide what the "intent" of the law is for a given case, well then you might as well elect an actor to speak for you. An actor will say just what you want him to say and he will interrupt you only when you get into troubled areas like intent and probable cause, he will speak louder than his opponent and use plain English so that everyone in the room hears what is being said. Why have lawyers use terms like litigation and mensus carpia and summa cum laude and magna carta when an actor can just ask the judge what all of this means and then repeat the question often enough so that the judge changes his mind after debating the question in his own mind a couple of times.

Is funny, cuz yoo dun evin hafta speak English if yoos a good acta and people will still undoohrstan who da underdog is, an will vote for him if yoo jes speak like isa INSULT to say stuff that is confusin'.

Yeah, intellect is not tough and if intellect always won, then my life would have been much easier. People against me are wrong. It's just that simple. In Citibank, I was there for 18 years and people would come up to me and ask me how long I had been working there. At first I was proud of the fact because I had not only intellect but experience on my side but eventually some people made it obvious that I should be ashamed. Ashamed that I wasn't promoted sooner I guess. So I started to question myself and then a whole lot of people started to ask me just for the sake of disturbing me. I should have learned from that but things just went downhill from there. Where do they get these people? Those people were wrong. It was harassment and they should have been fired for a code of conduct violation. WE all know it. It happened just like I wrote it. I had done nothing to them but the fact that I was there so long was license enough to harass me. Yet nothing was done, or maybe I was the one that did nothing. I must have LIKED people to harass me. You think? On the other hand, as you can tell by reading, maybe just maybe all these people were just curious to know how long I worked there, so they had to ask me over and over just to make sure their friends weren't lying to them. Their friends. The ones that put them up to it. Have to make sure they weren't lying.

So you wonder how our government is going to fall apart, it's gonna happen like it did at Citibank. Just do what you know is wrong and keep doing it until people complain and then just get someone else to do it to them and wait a while and poof, now only your friends work there, or better yet only your friends are left in government.   

Well I was gonna end there but they are discussing voter id laws and I am seeing the expected outrage at voter id laws and even though there is some value to that, the biggest problem in the US is the lack of ID.  We need to have ID provided to everyone.  I have seen the duplicitous use of the social security number both as ID and as a sorting mechanism and though it seems like an insult to have people sorted by number, what's so bad about making everyone accountable?  Why are only some people's fingerprints on file?  Why do some people get away with not paying their bills while others have to claim bankruptcy?   Why are some murderers out there when if we just hauled everyone in to get their DNA and fingerprints there would be no way to get away from their crimes. 

People don't want their SSN used for credit bureaus but without those, computers can't be used to track your debts or rather a number has to be assigned to you that no other bank will know who will then have to set up another number to ID you. 

In my mind, if you don't want your SSN used you MUST be up to something.  Which is ok because the government is probably using that to figure out who you are. 

It's just a way to track you.  That's all.  It's no Republican conspiracy.  It's necessary and it should be... frankly... free.  All people should have credit bureaus and ssns and driver's license numbers and even tax ID numbers all assigned by the government and attacks to those made criminal acts to the government.

Shame is what separates us from animals and to manage shame we don't want a public entity managing it.  That's why jails should not be private, that's why credit bureaus should not be private.  We don't want to trust some few people with our shame, we want a stable structure. What about mail?  Should that be private?  What about the internet and cable?  I mean these are how we communicate with the government or learn. 

Should these be private?  At very least these entities should be utilities, not for profit and stable enough to weather financial instability. In fact it should be impervious to it.