Trump Beds the Racists

Simple minds think of simple things.  Although trump is a master at PR, Franklin Graham, the bigot, and the son of an anti-semite, Billy Graham, is an imbecile captured by his religion.  This issue is code for racism by attacking the president on his citizenship and legitimacy.  Trump’s relationship to them leads to his integrity.  I’m sure he’s not worried about his brand or his financial security because of his wealth; but sometimes making deals in the gutter ignores that there’s more to life.  His ignorance to legacy apparently trumps common sense.  The continuance of these specious issues avoids the real work to be done. His conduct is not the model of sanity here for the country.

Trump is simply getting attention because the issue is so outlandish.  I’d like to be a fly on the wall in Ivanka’s house since she recently converted to Judaism to marry a wealthy Orthodox Jew.  Go figure that one out Donald.

This issue can’t be farther from the crux of what’s important to the country.  Are we to satisfy every crackpot’s claim in the interest of Democracy?  This is little more than a Tea Party “work slowdown” as when law enforcement enforces the letter of the law.

Republicans are either selfish or idiots.  And yes, this is a democracy and we have to put up with this BS.  But when is enough, enough?  When do the adults take back the conversation?  Paul Ryan’s credentials are nothing more than a Miami Univ. Oxford, Ohio  B.A in economics and political science.  This is the best they have to offer to solve our country’s fiscal concerns when there are expert’s opinions to the contrary?  Common sense dictates that cutting spending leaves little for investment.  Common sense and empirical experience has proven that cutting taxes is little more than trickledown, and doesn’t work.  Trump is aligning himself with this faction?  It only serves to prove that he’s more interested in the PR because there’s little else for the tea party to offer so he associates with the crowd that he can control or gain attention.  We all know it’s a smoke screen.  If the right can avoid talking about real solutions and nothing gets done, they’re satisfied.  If he can gain attention, he’s succeeding for his purposes.

The White house has released the President’s actual birth certificate.  What will it be next in avoidance of the issues?  Trump going further with the race bating comments regarding his acceptance to Columbia and Harvard.  Why would he question the ability unless he was surreptitiously questioning the color of his skin and his right to be president because of his skin color?

This discrimination persists to this day because the new scientific information illuminating the fact that there are no races among the human species remains unheralded.  So instead of talking about issues that concern us as a nation, we are distracted by those who still believe that the president’s credibility should be discounted because of his skin color.

Nice job Donald---something to be proud of.  You’re fired! 

And those who sit passively by, watching this discrimination persist like watching a rape instead of attempting to stop the violence, like the rest of the duplicitous and complicit Republican and Tea Party racists---you should be fired!

                                    No Flies !            

Making Abortion Obsolete

     As long as we’re on the subject of abortion---an issue that seems to polarize but never gets settled.  Perhaps we can think outside the box and arrive at a more amicable solution rather than the two sides trying to muscle a direction that will only make the other side incensed?

     Why must the argument be framed in extremes?  One extreme being dictated by the individual’s freedom or control over one’s reproductive system and perceived legal rights, the other says there’s a higher authority to answer to and it’s a sin which transcends the individual’s rights. 

     How about a different approach to the abortion question?  How about we don’t bother to define when life commences and we don’t make it an issue of control?

     Just because we have the technical ability to perform an abortion, doesn’t mean we should; anymore than because we have guns, we should use them at will. But the rights issue seems to be one of control.  “How dare someone legislate what a woman can do with her body”.  Remove the issue of an “unwanted” pregnancy, and you remove the issue of control.  It becomes moot.  So how do we do that?

     On one hand, those that argue that one is killing a life therefore no termination should be allowed, also paint an almost impossible situation if prevention of that creation is not allowed. But we know shit happens.  Behavior contrary to nature becomes cultish and varies among different societies.  Therefore to impose one culture or a set of “beliefs” on another is arbitrary.  This is a manmade constraint vs. nature’s urges and rhythms which will endeavor to prevail; sex urges are a Human Universal. Like building houses in a floodplain; you have success some of the time, but in the long run, you’re shoveling shit against the tide.  How do you think that usually works out?

     Any reason to prevent conception is not unreasonable considering the consequence for failure to do so is another life.  But according to the church’s followers, abstinence, being a form of contraception, is denial of “god’s” will. So there’s a conundrum here. The idea that contraception is forbidden because it’s against gods will is as preposterous as saying teens should be fucking like bunnies because that was what he intended when he gave them the capability of reproducing.  These debates are contrived, mental masturbation, and are endless.  These beliefs are also created as prerequisites by those that share a common cult---not necessarily shared amongst the world’s nonmembers of the group. 

     If one group protests assisting in the care of unwanted children, (welfare, Medicare, assistance programs etc) wouldn’t it behoove that group to help prevent the occurrence which will cost a lot less than paying for the care after pregnancy and delivery?  Think beyond the ideology (which is manmade) and pick the lesser of the conflicting policies.  Pay to prevent, or pay for the results of not preventing?  But saying no help or education before or after is not exactly realistic unless you get jollies from watching people’s predicaments.  And in a democratic society, the majority of voters should prevail.

     So what we’re talking here is sex education, prevention of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of diseases, decreased expenses incurred by the state in support of these children.  We’re not talking abortions; we’re talking the elimination of the necessity for abortions or expenses if the child is carried to term.

     If education and methods are widely available to stop the union of the egg and sperm, chances will be diminished for the necessity of abortions and the expenses.  Let’s face it, behaviors contrary to nature are elective; just the way self flogging is performed by some members of the clergy.  Anybody can believe whatever they want.  But to inflict behavior on others, founded on religion, is not what the founding fathers of this country had in mind.

     On the other side, nature is a beautiful thing.  We should be in awe of it for its ability to provide for all the living things in its domain. Conception is not the easiest thing.  Many couples cannot conceive for multiple reasons. This being the case, we should respect the experience.  But it goes deeper than that.  What could be the reasons for a mother to not want a pregnancy; unmarried, lack of support, inconvenience, guilt? These are transient conditions of society when compared to nature’s imperatives.

     So suppose for a moment, that every method and means were available for contraception.  Would it be wrong to therefore conclude that the incidence of unwanted pregnancies, hence, potential abortions, would decrease?  Forget sin for the moment.  Remember, with or without preventative measures, these conceptions become candidates for abortion.  Which scenario is the lesser of the evils; to help prevent, or to abort?

     Perhaps the method of control wasn’t 100% effective.  No method is.  Yes abstinence might be, but that’s not birth control, that’s just not having sex.  Not reasonable considering man is hardwired by nature to enjoy the experience---our "equipment" is not just for procreating.  Otherwise, nature would have some sort of device that in essence says---“do not use unless you want children.”  And if that were the case, you mean these tools and tunnels for making babies would only be used a handful of times in the individual’s life?  And only people who get married are allowed to have sex?  C’mon. Don’t forget our human universals.   Even animals experience sex for pleasure.  Man, only one step above on the food chain, should therefore not be denied when, according to scientific studies, there are many similarities between man and animals.  Maybe they’re better off not having brains as advanced as ours.  Maybe we think too much.  We had brains so we could deny ourselves what animals find natural?  C’mon again.  People can believe in cultish behaviors, but it’s unrealistic to enforce it on others.

     Perhaps after using contraception measures, a small number of “accidents” happen.  Give nature a break and kudos for perseverance.  But it’s not a sin.  It’s nature.  It’s not like taking a gun and murdering someone.  Nature snuck one in.  Just like after volcanic ash covers a countryside, life resumes.  But that doesn’t mean you have to keep the child.  There are plenty of couples who can’t conceive.  They can adopt.  Is it better to live with the guilt of possibly terminating a life form, perhaps one that could have made a world shaking discovery, or knowing that it was an honest mistake against the powerful forces of nature and you can contribute to the happiness of others?  For the “crime” of lax diligence relating to contraception, could you not be “inconvenienced” for 9 months?  Better than going to jail or living with the guilt (see # 29 here).  As a matter of fact, instead of the child becoming a ward of the state requiring greater expenses, the religious community, out of their “giving” hearts, will assist in placing the child in a loving home.  Remember, there’s no sin in permitting nature to perform what it is capable of doing.  But I would say it’s irresponsible to not make efforts at preventing conception.  Children should not be considered unwanted; particularly if contraception was not used.  Maybe they were just unthought-of in the heat of the moment, or ill advised as to the potential results from unprotected sex.  Isn’t it time to equip our children to the ways of real life---not belief in some irrational dogma for membership in a group?

     Sex is a Human Universal.  Failing to manage the human reproductive system is like believing it’s ok to build houses in a flood zone.  People who deny the implication of practical solutions in the name of mindless, ideological dogma, are simply programmed robots.  It also means morning after pills after rape and special circumstances when a mother’s life is threatened.  Human events are not an exact science that can always be accounted for; particularly with indiscriminate dogma.

     Which is the greater “evil”?  The one that terminates a pregnancy, or the one that prevents a pregnancy; just the way we brush our teeth to prevent tooth decay which are god’s little creations too; we use prophylactics or other methods to prevent pregnancies.  If you say they’re both the same then that’s a problem man created in his interpretation of some “scriptures” that were written before man had better understanding of his existence.  But if you say termination of a natural act is worse---I’m with you.  Just as you can’t terminate nature’s union after it emerges from the birth canal, the same should apply when it unites and attaches itself to the uterus.  It’s nature’s gift.

     But why should we consider something that happens in nature, something that is planned by nature as evil?  Where did that come from and is it universal or just to a particular sect? 

     It’s not about controlling someone’s reproductive system.  It’s about respect for the laws of nature; the same as giving a loaded gun to a six year old.  We’re talking about increased education on prevention, and acceptance of accidents.  We make available all the awareness and tools for contraception, a man and a woman makes every effort to address the consequences beforehand.  And if failure occurs, the pregnancy is carried to term and put up for adoption if the parents opt out. No issue of control, no abortion.  No questions asked.

                                             No Flies!            

For the Middle’s Ears only

It’ll be clear that this message is not for those on the extremes of the ideology spectrum.  You have already made up your minds and your flies so vast that alternative solutions to problems have about as much chance as snowballs in hell. 

But this message is for those who think they are open minded enough waiting for a signal to give them confidence to swing either left or right.  They’re so ambivalent to today’s issues that, to them, there is little of significant difference to distinguish between the three forces in American politics. Although that viewpoint couldn’t be more ill thought out or further from the truth; more likely, to the middle, there’s really nothing of importance except one or two topics, and they wait to see which way the wind blows.  Well, even if life’s issues are that limited, surely the signal has been given, loud and clear.  Too much is at stake to have missed this clarion call.  And if it’s only a few issues that are important, here’s the difference and their significance. A little ramble here.

Since the new congress has been in session it doesn’t appear that much has been accomplished. The thought of that in today’s world is enough to repulse anyone.  I haven’t heard of any programs to restore our infrastructure or create jobs.  All I’ve heard is how can they reduce the deficit and cut back on women’s health issues regarding education and abortion.  From the tone of the tea party, it seems their only goal is to return to archaic social issues advanced by the well to do and religious groups.  Their goal of lowering taxes does little more than enriching those that benefit most and doesn’t create jobs; and cutting back on sex education does not lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.  But the tea party crowd appears bent on holding up human progress and substituting dogma for intelligence.  This is no way to manage a country trying to stay competitive in the world.  Holding on to old memories of dominating, colonial, imperialism doesn’t work in a world connected with modern telecommunications and others capable of reeking terrorism because they resent our contradictory, intrusive, policies.  Running backwards in the name of dogma doesn’t address issues that need practical solutions addressing 2011 needs as opposed to ideology that addresses nothing but sentimentality. 

In case you just woke up we are in the year 2011.  A big diversionary charade is going on about deficits when we find we have, among the list; aging infrastructure, global warming issues, budget issues, education issues, an aging population, unemployment, social disparity, all while a significant segment of the voters believe that solving these problems require austerity measures and a return to faith in deities.

We know from experience that cutting spending and cutting revenues has led to stagnant economies; namely empirical data from the 1930’s.  We know that religious domination has led to suppression of education and technological advancements as we recall our history from the “medieval times”.  So why would we want to entrust our problem solving, to those that yearn for a return to these same old times?  Because we yearn for a return to “yesterday” and think we can get there if we simply click our heels and rely on outdated policies?

But we didn’t have the same issues then as we have now.  We didn’t know then what we do now.  The world is not the same place now as it was then.  We have aging populations that require assistance not, “I have mine you take care of yourself.”  We have populations that are starving and require jobs just to survive.  Not, “we live in a capitalistic world and that’s how capitalism works”.  Everybody is not a capitalist.

The recognition that we are living in the same world with those that have, and many that don’t, should come to light by just simply turning on the news.  But ignoring those differences believing the less fortunate “disserved” what they have is not only selfish and ignorant, but myopic to what this will foster for the future.  It also happens to be a racist type mentality.  Simply getting in one’s limos, living behind gated communities, educating children in private schools, and ignoring the social ills under the guise of “tighten our belts the deficit is going off a cliff” is alarmist and simply parroting those that benefit most from a tax cutting, austerity plan.  Are you educated or easily alarmed and gullible?

And in order to get their way, they hold on to old ideological issues such as whether the government should educate women how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.  Especially when the government doesn’t provide programs to support unwanted children; isn’t this contradictory?  So they want to cut revenues and cut spending to the people who need it most believing that a zero deficit will lead to a more vibrant society.  Living in a world surrounded by unemployed, disgruntled people, people who can’t provide for their own health care, who can’t feed themselves because they’ve lived beyond retirement, who can’t educate themselves, who are angry at others for taking their nonexistent jobs, who are traversing crumbling infrastructure, threatened by a polluted environment while those with money insulate themselves from these issues is just another form of the aristocracy saying “let them eat cake”.

Is this a society to be proud of?  Should the vision of those who influence the politics that solve our problems be so shortsighted or ignorant of the past that they cannot see what will eventually happen?  Can those in the middle ignore the diametric choices before them believe that their voices don’t have to be heard because they don’t care about anyone else?  Or that the group that addresses their one or two issues, regardless of all the other consequences, should be the overall problem solver?  Their silence will contribute to the demise of this country as opposed to contributing to its well being.

We have an aging population.  Because of science, modern healthcare has extended our life expectancy.  People cannot work forever.  So how do we address the additional healthcare required for this population when they cannot work?  Ignore them?  Maybe if jobs were being created it could help with the solution--more revenues?  Even with a job, the cost of childcare and education is becoming out of reach for many.  And because of ideology we’re supposed to not educate people how to not have children and further complicate society’s problems?  More poor, uneducated children to pile on the heap?  We have a growing dependency on oil simply because of growing needs of an expanding population.  We know it contributes to global warming regardless of those with their heads in the sand.  And even if all the scientists are wrong, what’s the price if the naysayers are wrong and nothing gets done?  Should we maintain these policies because those in the business will make less if we seek alternative fuels?  Wouldn’t be the first time a business went out of business because it became outdated.  So why do we artificially prop up this aging fuel industry which is costing the air we breathe and our political and military standing?  It’ll put people out of jobs?  Retool the people and create new jobs.  We have infrastructure that needs maintenance and modernization because of wear and tear due to population growth.  Are we simply to ignore this deterioration because we have a budget deficit and we should not spend to address these issues?  What have we done for the last 300 years?  When did we build our last bridge?  We live in an age of global competition where an educated workforce has always given us an edge in creative ideas and opportunity.  Are we giving up on that idea because those without an education can work at Wal-Mart and the few who can afford an education will solve all our problems---if they haven’t been forced to return to their country?  We are a nation of immigrants.  Because of our founder’s ideas of freedom, it was that very concept that allowed us to explore ideas that didn’t fit a stifling ideological mode like before the renaissance.  It was the contributions of immigrants that enabled this country to become the most influential on the earth since colonial times.  Why would we want to change the formula; because the remaining white colonialists don’t want to see the complexion of the country change?  But it will anyway, and it will not be stopped because of sheer population demographics.  It's apartheid when one group tries to control another group.  Little difference when it's concrete fences or economic fences.  So why not figure out ways to assimilate that growth and make it work for us as in the past---what’s changed?  Why change the formula now?  Yes, we have growing deficits. Part of them as a cost from waging wars which have to be paid for.  How do we handle our own finances to pay for something?  We either, save for it, sell something, or increase our income via a higher paying job.  But we know if we just put it on the credit card the bill will become due one day.  So we should pay for it by cutting back on education, health care, infrastructure repairs, investments etc?  Who suffers the most?  Instead the rich say cut taxes and that more money in their pockets will possibly induce them to invest and maybe that will trickledown and create jobs.  And that will grow the economy so then we’ll pay off the credit card debt?  It’s either stupidity or selfishness to believe that.  But if they controlled much of your education via either the media and the message from your houses of worship, you might be inclined to believe that.  Just the way black people still believe in a religion that condoned one of the greatest inhumanities to man---slavery.  Well if you’re poor, they’ll have you believe what they want.  The uneducated are impressionable.  Fortunately, a government can raise taxes from those who can afford it more than those who barely survive. This doesn’t make sense?  What is the quality of a society?  The few who make up the elite, or the many that can’t get by? 

So for those of you in the middle, who are waiting for a party to hit your special interest, hot button, because you have what you need and nothing else matters---think beyond your nose.  Because mismanagement of these current issues and countless more will cost you more than just money in the long run.  Quality of life is not quantifiable but very real, and ultimately becomes more costly.  Just like the cost of educating against unwanted pregnancies, and prenatal care; educating children and keeping them off the streets with programs might cost something upfront, but the lack of contributions from an educated citizen and the savings in prison care make investments in upbringing worthwhile.  Wouldn’t it feel better to know that more are contributing and feeling better about themselves and able to contribute than knowing that only a few have what they need?  And if those who have been more fortunate than others to benefit from this society pay disproportionately higher taxes, would you like to trade places?  Consider it a cost of doing business.  Consider it a privilege tax to live in a society that enabled the rich, to in fact, achieve what they couldn’t in other countries.  But also consider it an awareness tax that this society has needs that cannot translate into mine vs. yours---it’s US as in We.

Does the low wage earner really care about deficits or is a job more important?  What’s this about the deficit falling off a cliff?  Debt?  Deficit?  There is a difference.  We live with debt but who says we shouldn’t have any?  What are home mortgages?  Are we expected to pay 100% at the time of purchase?  We haven’t thought that way since the depression---why start now?  Or is it really alarmist misrepresentation, called demagoguery, on the part of some politicians to claim the deficit is bad?  It’s particularly in times like this that the ability of the government to run deficits benefits a society.  It smoothes out the bumps in the economic cycle by injecting capital when needed. Something the private sector can’t do.  Simply growing the economy thru investments will decrease the percentage of debt to the GDP; which is what we want!

15% unemployment isn’t the normal economy so it’s ok to temporarily run a deficit.  That’s what governments are for; to help manage thru times like this.  And look what got us out of the depression---war spending.  The big charade is really about “Starve the Beast”.  The objective of the conservatives is to maintain such high debt that there is little room in the budget to spend for social programs, or anything else for that matter.  We weren’t living beyond our means.  They squandered our resources, the country is now out of a job, and now they’re screaming a new tune to pay off all the mortgages.  We got into this position by not paying for the wars, depleted the reserves with the surplus refund, and on top of that, gave the Bush tax cuts.  It’s a gameplan. Wake up if you’re not part of the scam.   But now it’s spun that the “deficit” (they mean debt) is too high and it shouldn’t be passed on to our children.  This is not new.  This is a game plan and those who suffer the most falls for it.

Is there not a clearer choice?  Seems to me it’s either be an alarmist and lie about the situation, or pragmatically address our issues without false ideology.  Risk the vibrancy of this country’s future for self-serving interests cloaked in dogma or make a meaningful attempt to solve problems that benefit the most as opposed to a few.

Maybe we need a better balance between expenditures and revenues.  Perhaps we should assess entitlement programs and institute changes based on changing demographics; but not based on wanton lies.  Who’s going to pay for the wars?  You want the poor to fight them, and the poor and the middleclass to pay for them because to raise taxes may not create jobs?  Perhaps we need an objective overhaul in our thinking instead of letting our flies  dictate our demise.  But you in the middle go on thinking it doesn’t matter. 

                                            No Flies !            

Oil Addicts

Can there be more of a reason to find alternative energy resources than the hostile environment we find ourselves in the Mideast?  Killing U.N. Peace workers over the burning of a book; maybe there is, we’re addicts.  We are victims of our own doing and at the mercy of our oil dealers.  We spend billions and American lives defending human rights of women and abused civilians as a rationale because we are addicted to oil.  We walk on eggshells because our free speech conflicts with the constraints of their dogmatic dictates.  We have a clash of cultures because our inconsistent policies innately create conflict with theirs.  For over a century we have contrived convoluted policies dictated by our dependency on oil.  What will it take for us to get the message to change our ways?

Would we be over there if we didn’t have an interest in oil?  Would we be in Libya straining credibility when we don’t go into Darfur or Rwanda, or wherever there are other infringements on human rights?   Instead our military personnel are the de facto defenders of the oil companies and terrorists.  A good portion of our economy concentrates on defending oil related policies instead of these funds being redirected to domestic and more humane needs.

If we weren’t dependent on this oil drug we could give them the finger.  Unfortunately, we have become both enablers and enabled because we can’t confront our dependency.  We refuse to initiate actions to develop alternative energy to relieve ourselves of this addiction and wean ourselves off the drug.  And while it ultimately creates conflicts on the world stage, who is the ultimate beneficiary of our current policies? Terrorists supported by petrodollars, oil merchants, and military providers for maintaining the peace that our presence in the area undoes. Not only do we risk lives and currency for our addiction, we further insult the situation by giving tax breaks to the corporations so they can continue providing us with our oil fixes.  They’re like oil Buddhas.  As long as we keep buying oil, our “drug”, we’re hardly in a position to give them the finger lest we risk being manipulated even more. The Chinese and the rest of the world have such a voracious appetite, the cost and supplies will always be beyond our control.  We don’t like giving up control, but it’s exactly what we’re doing; and to third world tribes, no less.  But we DO have a choice.  We can leave their sphere of influence by diminishing our dependency on oil.  We can find alternatives for energy; solar, wind, shale, coal, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal among the noteworthy.  Except that our oil “dealer” companies and the rest of their cronies, lobbyists, politicians, maintain that Svengali grip.

We come from an open society whereby we treasure the right of free speech; regardless of how offensive it might be.  For if we attempt to curtail some thought  because it’s claimed to instigate violence somewhere else, then invariably, it is not free. Does it mean we curtail our way of living, here, because somewhere else it might not be acceptable?  Freedom of speech is not for all ears---just like giving a loaded gun to a six year old.  What’s acceptable in our culture is not necessarily nor should we expect it to be so all over.  So we have to adjust accordingly if we’re going to be in their space, otherwise we should just accept collateral damage for our indulgences and habits.

If what we consider free here is not acceptable there, do we have to consider their culture?  Only if we’re beholden to them and we are compromised by our interests within the region.  By the same token, all are not raised with the free speech philosophy, but rather, dogma that controls their lives.  When by ordinary standards we would have separate lives; what we have is a clash of cultures because of the bridge provided by telecommunications.  What were isolated interests, before, are becoming routinely unavoidable.  So what do we do? 

We can debate the issue endlessly whether we curtail our speech because some don’t understand, or do we press the issue further and say it’s their problem?  Obviously, can we or can’t we go into a neighbor’s house and feel free to provoke them in their own domain?  But we don’t know what is provocative and what’s not.  And we live in our culture believing free speech is ok and not punishable by death.  But there are other cultures that do not make that distinction, and do live without free speech, believing the speech or thoughts espoused by some deities or Imams should take precedence.  We have to respect that.  But that leads to the conclusion that if we don’t want to be subject to their oppression, we should either get out, or make other arrangements. 

If they want acceptance and respect on the world’s stage, that doesn’t mean we have to believe in their inhumane ways of dogmatic merciless laws.  If they want recognition then they have to conform to the world’s stage rules.  Change should come from within if their ways are uncomfortable for them.  They may not be ready for our “forced” humanity or culture.  And why do we presume they want it anyway?  All of our intervention seems to be motivated and rationalized by oil needs.  Would we really be that altruistic if there wasn’t any self interest?  Why don’t we rush to Darfur, Rwanda? 

They can hole themselves up within their borders.  But if we can’t accept the incivility of their ways without an effort on their part to, at least, condemn their own actions, then we should want no part of them.  Another reason we should get out and off the drug.  By doing that, because of the age of communications, the fanatics on both sides will not get their exposure.  We can only learn to adjust to the circumstances and revise our own policies.

Enough with the Karzais, the sheiks, the Musharrafs, the settlers, the Zionists, the dictators.  We can hardly make a coherent dent when we are so compromised and twisted in our own contradictory colonialist policies.  We’ll either be damned if we did or damned if we didn’t.  We should get off the dependencies and get out of the house of oil madness.  Let them fail or make the changes they need from within.  Yes, they are people of the same flesh as we are.  We should provide humanitarian assistance if necessary.  But it’s testament that nurture has failed to keep them current by our standards and they haven’t yet reformed.  As time goes on and if their suffering becomes sufficiently unbearable, they will be motivated to topple their own dictators and channel their anger to the appropriate causes---not to us---because we should be long gone.

                                            No Flies !