Police should not love PUBES

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

Today my point to you will be more the ethical and less the moral. Morals are something I IMPOSE on you.  A moral mess is when noone knows what right is. Basic things that are right like working together and not being cruel are lost to those people who are doing what they are told instead of what they know in their hearts to be right. Such is what it is like in the military or in places like New Jersey, where FEAR of retaliation is a reality when speaking your mind.

That's a moral mess.

Ethics is different.  The military is VERY ethical.  When you have a problem with ethics, the wrong that you do is different from the people you work around. It's like when you print Spanish flyers that don't exactly mean what the flyers do in English. Noone else that works with you would do this, but since you are a WAY HIGH up person in Citibank, and Spanish people are mostly at the bottom of the rank schedule, you continue on... lacking ethics. Or another example is when you charge a customer too much for coming in late, he might have a legitimate excuse but still you decide to bump him from his next appointment or charge him something by making HIM wait next time or maybe you just charge him a fee. Noone else would do this as a business tactic, but it's YOUR doctor's office and YOU'RE the doctor. 

And context matters because you could be unethical and the corporation is still ethical because you are doing stuff different than the other employess; or if the corporation is the only one spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the whole corporation could be unethical. 

So now that we have covered morals and ethics, it's time to think about the making of laws. A disturbing thing I saw yesterday was people being ok with Congress approving the removal of taxes. Rachel did a beautiful job as usual explaining how Kansas(KS) "tried" to do a HUGE removal of taxes and Missouri(MO) was about to do the same but was stopped. This serves as a PERFECT example...

a PERFECT example of why rich people don't belong in your legislature.   (another way of doing something PERFECT is doing it so-so, like when you cook stuff.)

The sad thing is that Rachel can't explain things to you on her show like I can because I am going to do a WHOLE LOT of assuming that she wouldn't do or can't do. First let's assume we cut taxes like they did and we have an economic mess like they did. What a mess up right? They cut taxes and now for no reason but their own, now they don't have money to pay people that work for the government. And this could have been forseen right? And this happened there but the EXACT same thing can happen anywhere. Elected people cutting taxes from the rich that cost poor people or the government their jobs. It's like the OPPOSITE of wealth distribution right? They got us again. The first time they kept the minimum wage SO LOW, that corporations got away with raising prices for everyone while keeping the poor dependant on government. 

You see that is ALSO anti-wealth distribution isn't it?

Let's revamp. Take a democrat and get him to try to cut taxes so that there is less government... which means less regulation and police...  it can't happen. What CAN happen with more people in government is that there is MORE of a chance that one of them is corrupt, it's not hard. 

More people in government = more corrupt people somewhere.

Ok so now let's take a Republican and get him to cut taxes. Not only is there less regulation which allows waste disposal to end up in our drinking water, which allows price-fixing at the gas stations, which allows businesses to operate IRS worry-free because we don't have the NUMBERS to properly police them, but we have also given the rich people a whole lot more money by not taxing them which they in turn can spend on getting their Republican candidates elected for a second term. It's kinda like burning off the weak populace right? I mean you just keep on giving the rich people breaks and the poor people have less and less regulation and protection and by the way let's take away everyone's gun rights and have less police because the Republicans are SO trustworthy, they wouldn't dream of bribing what few COPS are employed.

OH and by employed, what do think will happen in this scenario after the government is SHORT the money it didn't collect from taxes that they didn't collect from the tax breaks it gave to the rich? There goes half the police force, there goes the teacher's budget and hey let's try to scale back benefits and make government people PAY MORE for healthcare now that we have basically taken wealth from the government and GIVEN it back to the wealthy running the factories.  Those factories were built by the security government provides THAT WE ALL PAY FOR much like Senator Warren explained in her YouTube Video.

What else? How about we cut back on pensions? You knew I was going there didn't you! Yep, because PENSIONS are the last bastion of pirate's gold there is nowadays. Nothing says I plunder you like taking away your pension for GODKNOWSWHAT reason that only Financial Experts can explain.  

Now that Rachel has made it clear why legislatures cut taxes... stop them. (who me? I will make my mark soon I expect)

Ok, now I want to make a final addendum about what is missing in politics and a GRAND SCHEME made clear to me recently by Katrina Vanden Heuvel. I like her not just because she is good-looking etc, but because she really comes across as a GIANT among peas. But unlike other men, I LIKE intimidating women. I think these few intellectuals NEED more men like me to make their existence meaningful because there are SO FEW of them.

Ok anyways, (it's Spring so fast forward past my hormones), so this mechanism I am about to explain to you is a hugely hidden reality that all of YOU must see exists. To the left we have extreme left which is HUGE government, huge taxes, huge regulation. More to the right we have MORE government. At the center, theoretically, we have the RIGHT AMOUNT of government. Some people call people here Centrists meaning they are not loyal to either party.

I would be a Centrist if there was such a thing.

And more to the right, which they call THE RIGHT, are people that believe in LESS government. And at the extreme right there are people that believe in militias and state governments having sovereignty. Moreover CORPORATIONS would LOVE to have states do what they want and not have to worry about federal regulators. At the end of this scenario, a lean non-regulatory government body that does what the corporation wants in this corrupt state while it conducts business in all 50 non-corrupted states are probably the IDEAL every corporation dreams of.

It's kind of like feeding isn't it?

So all of this "secessionist" behavior is not so nuts once I explain what's in it for the rich people. They get make the rules, they get to keep their place in society. If anyone comes close to competing with them, they just send out their 10-man police force to deal with them since hah, nobody's got guns and all the rest of the police force is a TEAM and would not question these 10 INSIDE men that keep not just order but hierarchical order in check.

But it's not in the police's best interests is it? I mean instead of this, the police force could be HUGE. There could be ample people being employed in education and even in prisons. Prisons don't have to be harsh do they? With more money people could get the drugs and peace and the reset they deserve from what we used to call "rehabilitation".   I feel kind of stupid asking you all to take money from the rich and advocating for a better society... like that point needs a convincing host.

And I'm sorry for this SECupp and Ann but I am about to make fun of extreme Republicans. Extreme republicans are like the hair on your body. I believe hair grows right where the glands are and the glands on your body regulate sweat and hormones. But if sweat were allowed to remain on your body it would cause a rash and soon the beads of pollen in the air that spread life as much as it does infection would bring infection to your body but wait, now that we have hair, the sweat can inch its way off our body and the infectious entities are forced to crawl up the hair to where the sweat is and with a soft wind in the air, poof water and infection are gone.

You see this what I explained in my previous post is the usefulness of luring away infections by the use of something it needs more and often water serves as a great lure.

Magic defense.

Now the puzzling thing for me is to have hair that you cover up. Your armpits and your leg hairs and your pubic hair, don't really get the benefit of the wind now do they? It's almost useless to have this hair. It doesn't help to have hair down there unless you sweat and even then all that happens is a big coagulation of stink and must that perhaps would be better off wicked away by your clothes. So it's my opinion that it's better to SHAVE that hair. It's useless. Which is what I would call Republicans that elect themselves by BORROWING the money that they will SAVE the corporations that they give tax breaks to. Yeah. These are useless hairs, these aren't Republicans...

these are PUBES.

Ok, so I kind of missed my point there but it was this that there is a MISSING part of the whole left right thing. We don't need extreme Republicans but if we MUST suffer them then what we are missing are extreme Democrats. I mean what Katrina made mention of one day was that we don't have ANYONE flagging the extreme left now. And we should have that option shouldn't we? We should be able to have the option of choosing a guy that will RAISE taxes, promise new schools, promise more police, promise more teachers and more funding for our children. Doesn't that make sense? I mean didn't we ALL spend fully HALF our day in school when we were kids? It should be an option to raise school lunches spending and provide free pencils and paper maybe. It should be an option to take rich people's FAT wealth and chop it enough to allow for good roads and the funding of scholars that will fix our water problems through excellence and truth instead of obfuscation.

And because of this LACK of rational representation by the Democrats, the whole picture is kind of tilted. It sags to the right. Everywhere we look we have people from the tea party(the extreme right or the PUBES), then we have regular republicans and then regular democrats and that's IT. Small wonder then that Obama has to lean to the right to get anything done, when our MINDSET is such that we don't even consider an extreme left.

And it's kind of designed this way. Rich people would never vote for someone that is going to tax them and now that rich people CAN fund elections, how do you think they are going to get their money back? The unfortunate truth is that the only WAY to get a rich person's money is by promising help in return.

Get that? Congressmen OWE the rich people. Whatever remains, no matter how improbable, MUST be the truth.

It's time to re-visit campaign spending again. I know I have an uncanny ability of ruining the worldview but fact is people can be addicted to money OR they can be addicted to helping people. And even though I feel it's hopeless to get rich people to see this, I have to account for the fact that I am OLD and have JADED lenses, whereas young people don't know any better and if enough of them outnumber the weak people like me and the rich people and the other weak cells in our animal that are doing haphazard things, they can set us straight and we and they, the weak and the strong, can go on in this animal, AGAIN not over-progressing, and living just so-so. 

PS. btw yes I KNOW extreme left is Communism and yes I know the minute a girl pops out of the cake in their office they will all be as corrupt as a 2 toilet brushes in one toilet, but good comedy isn't about reality, it's about convincing your mind to GO THERE, or MOVE THERE. (SarahK woot!)