My Followers…..


I am sad to say that you won’t be seeing me for a while. Thanks to the problems that I am having finding work I will be temporarily offline. Until I can come up with the money, my internet/cable will be disconnected as of 04-13-13. Right now, we owe $201.71, so it may be a while before I can come back and harp some more about the stupidity in the world.

Until the day of my return, I hope that you will continue to share my blog with your friends, family, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, bosses, politicians or the next stranger you meet.

I will miss you greatly and hope that I don’t lose any of you during this time of desperation.

Thank you for joining me in protesting stupidity.

Please feel free to continue using the OHS (Hypocrites Anonymous) page for group therapy sessions.

Big Hugs to all.

PS: I am setting my blog up to accept all comments without a moderator, so please keep the fighting to a minimum. Thank you.

Overseas Charities????


Why do we send money to charities overseas?

If you are one of those that feel sorry for the downtrodden of other countries, I understand.  You see the poor hungry children posted up on the TV, starving to the point of emaciation and think “Oh that poor child!” Then they blast you with the “It only takes a few cents a day, no more than it would cost for a cup of coffee, to help this child.” I understand that it can be difficult to look at that and not want to help. Really, I do understand.

But, if you send money overseas, you have absolutely no guarantees that it will be used the way they promise. Even if the charity does use it for food, fresh water, etc., they have no way of stopping the government of that particular country from stealing the food/equipment at gunpoint for its own needs. You also take the risk of your money being sent to help fund terrorist groups in a completely different country.

What I don’t understand is why you don’t feel sorry for the downtrodden right in your own neighborhood, city, county, state or country? What is so hard about looking for those that are in need near where you live?

It’s not like there aren’t enough charities here in the USA that could use the help. Shoot, if we just put the same money into our domestic charities then I seriously doubt that we would have hungry/homeless children, hungry/homeless military vets, etc.

At least here in the US you can check up on where your money went, who benefitted from it and when it was used. If you find out that your money was being abused, then you have legal recourse to punish the person(s) responsible.

Also, it wouldn’t cost you any more than the same amount of money and you could make the donation either anonymously or in person (saving the cost of the stamp/transfer fee). You could meet the people that you are helping and learn about them and their situation. You could even meet other people that are busting their butts to help in a more direct way, such as running the soup kitchens/food banks. Shoot, you could always spend that money on yarn or cloth and make hats, scarves, or other clothing for direct donations. This would actually last longer than just cash or food. And, the person that received the item you made would know that you take your donation seriously enough to spend your hard earned free time on making something just for them, instead of just feeling sorry enough to make a monetary donation.

You could even take the time to teach someone something that you are very good at doing. Taking the time to show a person how to sew, crochet, cook, budget money, woodwork, beadwork, jewelry making, typing, reading, organizing, painting (fine art/household), drawing (fine art/architectural), leatherworking, metalworking, welding, or anything else that you know how to do, will actually help that person create a job niche for themselves. Not only do you feel good, but you help raise that person’s self esteem and take one more person off the needy list. And it wouldn’t be a handout. It would actually be a hand up. This is actually what most people want.

Granted, there are people out there that just want someone else to feed, house and clothe them without having to do anything for themselves. These people are obvious, but cannot (at this time, with our current social beliefs) be left out. Telling them that they are not living the life that they could be is not going to work. They are living the way they want to right now. That could change later on, but in most cases it takes a major crisis for them to decide differently. Usually they are addicts or victims of abuse that have just plain given up because life has become too difficult for them to deal with.

Also granted is that there are people out there that abuse their positions of authority in the charity. This can be overcome. All it takes is one person that is willing to step up and report their activities/crimes. We do not have enough people in this day and age that are willing and able to do this. No one wants to get involved. Or they don’t want to look like the bad person “trying to pull down the program”. Or they are afraid that the program/charity will be shut down.

Buck up! If some over-achiever politician shuts it down because of one person’s screw up, then get with the others and start up your own program/charity. Yes, this could take time to get going, but at least you will know that you are doing your best to help those who could really use the program.

It basically comes down to this:

STOP FEEDING OUR MONEY INTO OTHER COUNTRIES WHEN YOUR OWN COUNTRY CAN USE ALL THE HELP YOU ARE WILLING TO GIVE!!!!!

Legalizing Drugs – Yes or No?


This blog was inspired by John Raymond. (Thanks John!)

 

What would happen if the U.S. legalized drugs?

Well, there would definitely be a meteoric rise in drug use (duh), theft, unemployment, more theft, increased number of emergency calls, more theft, higher insurance rates (both business and individual), more car wrecks, more domestic violence, more rape, etc, etc, etc.

Obviously this would not be a good thing.

However, is there a way to legalize drugs AND minimize the afore-mentioned issues? Let’s take a look, shall we?

For the sake of argument, we will be legalizing all of them. Otherwise this blog would get way too long to read in one sitting. So, all drugs are legal. Great! Now what?

There would have to be special companies that manufactured these drugs. Some companies would be general, manufacturing a wide range of drugs. Other companies would be specialists, dealing only with one or two types of drugs. Of course they would be the ones to determine how much product per individual unit would be salable. Similar to how cigarettes are packaged. Granted, this would only work for drugs like pot or other leaf-type drugs. I am sure that making individual packets and then grouping them in larger packages could work for the other drugs, but I am not going to get all that specific since I am not an expert in this field. These companies would also be the ones to set the price of the drugs. Obviously this would be based on the cost of growing, chemicals needed, machinery, taxes, special licensing, special employee certification, insurance, security and man-hours. This could get pricey.

Then there would have to be the distribution system. Again, this would involve machinery, insurance, taxes, special licensing, special employee certification, security and man-hours. Fortunately, there are already companies that are set up for distribution in general. Again, this could get pricey.

On top of the previous two points, there would need to be wholesale and retail outlets. I mean, c’mon, you can’t just make a drop at the local grocery store or set up a vending machine outside the library. Get real. You would once again have to have wholesale agents and retail stores that had the proper machinery, special licensing, special employee certifications, insurance, taxes, security and man-hours. Once again, this could get pricey.

So, now we move over to federal, state, county and city government involvement. Since everything else is regulated to a fare-thee-well, then drugs would be no different. As we saw in the previous paragraphs, this entire industry would require special licensing, employee certification, insurance and, oh happy days, taxing. Based on previous history, each level of government is going to want their own piece of the pie. The biggest question to be answered is….”how high can we set the fees and taxes, but still get companies and people to pay?” I will let you decide what you think would be a fair tax.

Another form of regulation is most definitely an age limit. I mean, if you’re willing to tell our kids that they’re not old enough to drink, but they’re old enough to kill for our country, then you might as well tick them off with drugs, also. Say, make the age limit the same as for alcohol.

Now, if we add everything up, we have lots of new companies (in addition to the pharmaceutical companies), lots of new jobs, and lots of new taxes and fees. Sounds great, right? Not quite.

Remember all the regulation, certifications, etc? How would you go about deciding who is a legitimate company? You don’t want just any Tom, Dick or Harry starting up a pot field or even a hydroponic pot farm in their basement or the nearest abandoned warehouse. And you definitely don’t want some unscrupulous gangster that is going to “boost” sales by dosing a slower addictive drug with a faster addicting drug. Not to mention making sure that the employees are protected from the same unscrupulous companies or gangsters that would intentionally get their employees addicted and make them work for their next “hit”. In addition, you would have to set up some type of guideline (adjustable per company) to protect these budding entrepreneurs from their own employees. This would definitely be some form of weeding (forgive the pun) out those job seekers who are addicts trying to get hired just for access to the drugs.  And then there is the insurance. Woe to the company that doesn’t have protection from natural disasters, theft, medical (yikes!) or lawsuits from unhappy family members of the addict. Hoo boy, there’s a whole ‘nother zebra. Better put that in with the government regulation section. Definitely need to put that under the common sense laws that are supposed to be in existence. Otherwise, the legal costs would skyrocket. And all of that lovely tax money would go down the drain.

So there are just a few of the pros and cons of legalizing drugs. I have my own opinion on how to do this. As if you didn’t know that.

First, the government would run everything from manufacturing to distributing to sales. Anyone that worked in this field would be a government employee, with all of the benefits and detriments involved. That way, full federal regulation would be involved and enforced. This would include how much and how often a person could purchase their “fix”.

Second, anyone that decided that they were going to get on the drug band wagon would have to be part of a government study that involved full medical check-ups on a regular basis (say every two weeks), could only get the drugs from a government facility and if it required injections, then they would have to go to a government medical officer to receive the injection. They would also have to sign a waiver of liability, accepting responsibility for their own safety up to and including death.

Third, anyone entering into the addiction world would have to get a divorce, give up any children in their custody and be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies due to poor judgment. This includes men. If said person does not have any known children, then they would have to donate sperm or eggs prior to beginning their addiction. This way, if they decide later on that they want to get off the drugs, they will still be able to have a child. Also, said addict will be given condoms to prevent the spreading of STD.

Fourth, each “client” would have to show a current paystub each time they came in for their “fix”. In other words, they would still have to be a productive citizen. Now don’t get me wrong. I know that addicts are not the world’s greatest workers, but they are capable of doing all of the “shit” jobs that no one else wants to do. Unfortunately, this would most likely push out the migratory crop workers (usually seasonal and usually from other countries) and other similar workers, but it would most likely reduce the number of people wanting to get hooked.

Fifth, the “client” would have to live in a segregated community with other “clients”. These communities could range from individual military style housing to studio apartments, depending on what would be most cost-effective. The important thing is separation from the rest of the town or city, as well as separation from each other (privacy and security). This way if they feel the need to commit a crime, then they can perpetrate their crimes on each other. I do not recommend a separation of the sexes. My main reason for this is if you choose to become addicted under this system, then you are choosing to live the life of an addict. No one has forced you to become addicted. You cannot blame your childhood, parents, etc. My second reason is that men and women are supposed to be equal in this country. So stand up and be equal in the bad as well as in the good.

So…..these are just a few of the different directions that our country can go when it comes to legalizing drugs. I am sure that there are many other ways of looking at it, but I am only one human being. Please feel free to expound upon your own ideas in the comment box. Or shoot me an email and I will see if I can post it as an addendum to this blog. Heck, you might even inspire a whole new blog just for you!

One thing I do know about this subject is that we, U.S. citizens and government, are woefully unprepared for legalized drugs, not only as a country, but as a culture in general. At this time in our history, there are way too many debates over moral issues between religious groups and secular groups. Just remember what happened after Roe vs. Wade. I’m sure you get my drift.

Our Government & Politics – just a hint of irony.


In response to the fact that it is once again coming up on election time, I decided to do a little research of my own.  My decision to do this research was based upon a mild curiosity as to what certain terms, that we all take for granted, actually meant.

Here is what I found:

     Politics – (From Greek politikos “of, for or relating to citizens’) as a term it is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil government, but also applies to institutions, fields and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic & religious segments of society.

     It consists of “social relations involving authority or power” and to the methods and tactics used to formulate & apply policy. (1)

     Modern political discourse focuses on democracy & the relationship between people &politics. It is thought of as the way we “choose government officials & make decisions about public policy”. (2)

The above explanation can be found via Wikipedia.

The definitions below can be found via The Free Dictionary by Farlex.

     Citizen:

  1. A person owing loyalty to & entitled by birth, or naturalization, to the protection of a state or nation.
  2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy privileges there.
  3. A civilian.
  4. A native, inhabitant or denizen of a particular place.

     Politic:

  1. Artful or shrewd ingenious.
  2. Crafty or unscrupulous, cunning.
  3. Sagacious, wise, prudent, especially in statesmanship.
  4. An archaic word for political.

     Democratic:

  1. Of, characterized by or advocating democracy.
  2. Of or for the people in general; popular.
  3. Blieving in or practicing social equality.
  4. Democratic: of, relating to or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

     Democracy:

  1. Government by the people or their elected representatives.
  2. A political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members.
  3. The practice or spirit of social equality
  4. A social condition of classlessness & equality.
  5. The common people, especially as a political force.

 

     Republic:

  1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
  2. A nation that has such a political order.
  3. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
  4. Often Republic. A specific republican government of a nation.
  5. An autonomous or partially autonomous political & territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
  6. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field.

     Representative:

  1. One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification.
  2. One that serves as a delegate or agent for another.
  3. A member of a governmental body, usually legislative, chosen by popular vote.
  4. A member of the U.S. House of Representatives or of the lower house of a state legislature.
  5. Representing, depicting or portraying or able to do so.
  6. Authorized to act as an official delegate or agent.
  7. Of or characteristic of government by representation.
  8. Like or typical of others of the same class.

     Senate:

  1. An assembly or a council of citizens having the highest deliberative and legislative functions in a government specifically.
  2. The upper house of the U.S. Congress, to which two members are elected from each state by popular vote for a six-year term.
  3. The upper house in the bicameral legislature of many states in the U.S.
  4. The upper legislative house in Canada, France, and some other countries.
  5. The supreme council of state of the ancient Roman Republic and later of the Roman Empire.
  6. The building or hall in which such a council or assembly meets.
  7. A governing, advisory or disciplinary body of some colleges and universities composed of faculty members and sometimes student representatives.

     Congress:

  1. A formal assembly of representatives, as of various nations, to discuss problems.
  2. The national legislative body of a nation, especially a republic.
  3. The national legislative body of the U.S. consisting of the Senate & the House of Representatives.
  4. The two-year session of this legislature between elections of the House of Representatives.
  5. The act of coming together or meeting.
  6. A single meeting, as of a political party or other group.
  7. Sexual intercourse.

I have pointed out some of the more ironic definitions of each aspect of our lovely nation. I have to admit that my all time favorite, for many unsavory reasons, is #7 under Congress. Yes, I went there. And so did you when you read it.

Oh! The irony!