The litmus test Right from Wrong

The story of Tim DeChristopher is enlightening. Please view it here. It is a fascinating exploration of what happens when the clarity of right and wrong are applied to real-world issues while evacuating all of the social norms. He saw what that land auction represented an illegal land grab by the powerful facilitated by the fed government pukes. Further, he even was able to put up the money to make good on the properties he bid on and won. Way after the fact, Obama sec of interior determined that the auction was in fact wrong, as it failed to follow fed EPA laws. Curiously, the judicial branch does not feel that these issues are relevant to the illegality of DeChristopher's participation in the auction.

It is really a blessing that at least Mr. DeChristopher was able to shed light on the land dumping practices of the W. Administration. How many others were handled in a similar manner? It would have been a wonder if four or five others had been able to enter the auction and really make it interesting.

It seems that there is a real price to be paid for exposing the rot in the current system, look at how hard the Feds are chasing Wikileaks.org dispite the numerous comments of "nothing to see here move along" to they [wikileaks] has blood on their hands. Nevermind that the Feds never let facts get the way of a good story. More recently the work of wikileaks has exposed the truth of the kindness and nobility of the USA toward Haiti done through magnanimous trade deals and embargos, not to mention coups.

Reality is that the number of instances where the right choice is made are exceedingly rare. The mendacity of the US government seems to be without bound, and the US mass media are the subservient poodles.

The Graft being Corrupt in Iraq Circa 2004 Exposed Today

Not to beat a dead horse, but to clear the air. The rationale provided for going to war with Iraq was the single question on WMD. When it was becoming clear that WMD were not going to be available to hold up as evidence new reasons needed to be offered. None of this is new but where were the Dems in starting investigations into these inconvenient facts?

Needless to say the post "Victory" party in Iraq included wide spread looting of not antiquities, but of weapons. So to make the long-winded point: 1 the invasion was a falsehood. 2 the ensuing "war" is based upon destroying military as well as all of the utility structure as possible. 3 the apres party was a failure, one where the "coalition of the willing" are required to take full responsibility, that is of course if the Geneva conventions signatures are still considered meaningful. 4 the "provisional authority" under direction of viceroy Paul Bremer managed the remaining assets of the iraqi people, approximately 20 b USD He managed to piss away more than 18.7 b of it. I mean really piss it away, after 3 audits by the US insane clown posse there is no record for it, that is 10% score, I am accustom to anything below 70% labeled a failure, so this is an impressive feat. Moreover, as a viceroy of the US government clearly the US government is responsible for returning these funds to the Iraqi people, right? As of yet there is no news source willing to make that statement, curious.

The whopper of this whole adventure is the patent failure of the Democrats to even consider themselves a party in opposition to the GOP. One has to engage in Orwellian logic to find the whole "look forward not backward" argument made by a attorney believable, and as an extra bonus he is the next president. Actually, this argument only applies to a restricted group of individuals. I am quite certain that a large number of those enjoying incarceration in the US prison complex feel they are deserving of this as a defense of their past lapses in judgement. Further this new president has found the will to look backward at a group less deserving of such luxuries.

So once again we arrive at politics meaningful or less? The answer is clear to me.

Politics? Meaningful or less

Looking back historically one can observe that with a few exceptions politics have been a game of the wealthy and morally corrupt. If one attempts to pull on the thread of logic and money the whole tapestry unravels to reveal little more than glamorous language to deceive while money grubbing or chasing other materiel is cloaked in ideological shells.

These are the lessons of the wikileaks conducted cablegate release, at least as restricted to foreign affairs. Is there any reason to think that domestic issues are treated differently? What happens where the two intersect in what are commonly called "trade agreements"?

The most famous of which NAFTA, which has done nothing to hinder the war on unions, in fact it has enhanced it by adding a whole new array of choices for management. Yet it pales in comparison to the benefits won by management in going to China where a "socialist government" keeps unions in check and allows tax loop-holes back to off-shore locations. Surprisingly not many Federal level politicians offer any sort of consideration to these workers. Sure seems like a strange form of representation.

Where to start

The most reasonable place to start is by framing the thought process.  Coming from the first world, specifically the US, I intend to discuss trends and facts that we can impact easily without consequences.  Further, we must recognize that there are those in other places where making an impact has severe consequences.

Equally important is consideration of the availability of information, and what other items are floating out there competing for our attention.  It is this distraction of our attention by the other items that we must be ever diligent to tame.  It seems that more than a few people have started to realize that our capitalistic system has had some interesting results.  Some of the best are chronicled here to find a myriad of drole distractions that are correctly satirized as being important.

So what is important?
This vexing question has plagued me for years, couched as what is your passion, what drives you, ... etc.  I never had a response I felt was worth repeating.  Meanwhile, peers offered responses like, to help people as a doctor, or to understand law as an attorney, or to understand how things work as an engineer.  These same peers offered a different explanation to the question on what is America about, the overwhelming answer is not what the forefathers mentioned in the declaration of Independence, but rather personal wealth.  I failed to understand how any of the above met the definition of important, I understood they may have met the curiosity of the individual but not important.

Meanwhile the condition of the world around us could provide some clues as to what may be of import.  In trying to decode the news of the 80s and 90s it was near impossible to understand domestic issues and foreign behavior was so bad one could consider it non-existent.  The advent of the internet really altered this situation and most recently the wikileaks explosion radically changed the information world.  It is with this in mind that I started accessing these new easily accessible information sources that world of information opened in front of my eyes.  The old kerberos of commercial media that constrained world of facts was cracked.  Under proper evaluation revelations are startling, this is a good example.  The domestic issues seem to suffer a similar historical fate, that is being under-reported or miss-reported.  Even now the we are blitzed in this new electronic medium with a cabal of media interests that work diligently to control the information.  Examples are popping up all the time on how this is failing.

Surprisingly there are mass defections of those in the elite class to find a better social-economic system.  It is through the messages from these defectors that we can learn what is important and what we can impact.

Inaugural Post

This blog is about evaluating topics in an intellectually honest way.  Even the topic must pass the laugh test of importance to be worthwhile.  The thought of wasting one's time to read a rant without support is repugnant.  


I am not an ideologue, thus I do not subscribe to a belief system that can be articulated in common parlance.  Rather, I consider the facts and let them speak for themselves.  Further, one is hard-pressed to find many cases that when reduced result in simple moral questions where the answers are obvious. 


I plan to be short on rhetoric and long on facts and questions.