The War on Truth

Haven’t written much lately - it’s been a busy sort of month. Lots of thoughts brewing on this cold and windy day however.
This day, and yesterday too come to think of it, has a feel of some Russian novel. Its bitterly cold, even in the bright sun, and the wind will not stop blowing. This old house is full of smoke and ash from the amount of fires we've had to have in the fireplace and woodstove, constantly over the last 36 hours. And it’s still cold. Grey and cold. Russian novel-esque.

On other fronts the war on truth rages harder than ever, as evidenced by this short interview with Bill Moyers: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1128-08.htm
Moyers, perhaps one of the last great newsmen, left the long-running program Now, on PBS, earlier this year. In my opinion this was a blow to the quality of television journalism - although Moyers remains active in his roles behind the scenes, perhaps more so than before.
Even unfortunate than the loss of a great journalist from the regular airwaves, is the perceived victory of the conservative right wing over what they brand as "liberalism".
Sadly "liberal" is too often a catchall for truth that challenges conservative positions, or actions. Truth is the enemy of a great many people, on both sides. If you are a "liberal" (which is an odd thing these days, once a "liberal" meant more what libertarian does today, than leftist nanny-state weenie) then truths that challenge you are "right wing", if you are "conservative" truths that challenge you are "liberal" - in both cases the thing you aren’t is the enemy. Brand a truth as "enemy" and hopefully people will ignore it, because after-all if your pundits say "its the enemy" it cant be valid, right?
This is the level to which we have sunk. Truth is the enemy of the political machine in this nation - both halves of that machine. The conservative half of the machine however wields a frightening amount of power to thwart truths that don’t suit their ends. With people like Ken Tomlinson in positions of media power, and elements of the "Religious Right" having what practically amounts to an "always on" connection to conservative politicians and media outlets, while they may not monopolize media, they have the ability to and have become adept at the manipulation of it.

I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. The major political "factions" of the nation are not the politics of the people. They are the politics of the politicians, who have their own agenda, morals (or lack there-of) and greed’s, and will try to serve themselves first - Serving the people is a thing to do just enough of to get re-elected, but no more. Those who aren’t like that are grist for the mill, and either never achieve positions of power and authority, or by the time they do are not what they once were.
I see people, know people, who believe in their party, their politicians, who think they work for them, are like them, have the best interest of the people at heart. Those who believe this, I pity. The people are pawns for the political powers, for their games, investments and greed. I don’t care what side you are on.
Truth will always be the enemy of that type of behavior. The next time your "side", your politician, goes after a journalist, a writer, a professor, or anyone - look beyond the rhetoric, ask yourself "How can this person hurt my 'side', and if they really can, why is that?"
The answers are surprising.

"I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen."Democracy - Leonard Cohen

Re-Authorized Reproduction

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/NEWS01/51005006

So, the woman behind the proposed legislation I posted about below has taken it back. More complex indeed.
Swindlers - All politicians are swindlers. Doesnt matter what side they are on.

The scary thing is, most people never realize this fully - when a politician bandies about words people like to hear, they stand up behind that party. Liberals (in the modern definition) stand up when someone says "Ban Guns, Feed the homeless!", Conservatives stand up when someone says "Tax cuts! No anti-gun legislation!" and thats all she wrote.
People stand up for a party, and a person, through and through because of one or two issues and then let the rest slide, or ignore them.
I have some great friends who do this - smart, intelligent people, but they have jumped on one bandwagon or another and refuse to see it when a politician on their side, especially one they really like, does something dirty.
But they are all dirty - its not about partisanship, its certainly not about the constituency - its about the politicians themselves, their agendas, and their buddies (who most likely wrote, and then paid for, those "agendas"). As a commentator said in my last post, democracy only works until everyone decides they can vote themselves rich.
And it seems we're no longer a nation of citizens with spines to argue that point.

Unauthorized Reproduction

I have, sometimes jokingly, said I think we need to license parenthood. On the whole I am not sure about this, because it is a restriction of freedom and it wouldnt stop anything bad from happening. Bad things will happen no matter how much the state tries to nanny its citizens. I favor a system that approaches anarchy far more than one that approaches the government controlling everything.
Far worse, in my opinion, than the government making us all prisoners of good intention by legislating protective measures for us all, is the government legislating morality. And by that I mean, the morals (often religion based) of our elected officials being used as the compass by which right and wrong is decided, and by which the people subject to the whims of those politicians are decreed to act and live, lest they face fines or imprisonment. Personal morality has nothing to do with government. A politician, or group of politicians, personal morals and opinions should always take a backseat to the majority opinion and moral within his/her consituency - and not just the majority he/she choses to listen to either.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, thats not how its done. We are a Christian nation, sanctioned by God to do as our politicians (who are on missions from God) decree is only right, and our compass for right and good will be, if not the bible itself, common born-again Christian doctrine. Not that thats what the people want, but thats certainly the way it is.
Apparently, in Indiana, this now means politicians are trying to legislate who can, and who can not, have babies.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/1720587.php
Any woman seeking to get pregnant by means other than sexual intercourse, would have to be married under the proposed revisions to current law.
Fucking bullshit - it shouldnt be the states business what someones marriage status is, even if they do want to have kids. And you cant tell me its not a slap at the lesbian community. I mean, I hate to sound that way, like another liberal asswipe who always see's great conspiracy against the minorities (I am certainly not that) but really, who else would this hurt the most? And who else is viewed by many conservative politicians as "wrong" and needing to be criminalized? Right.
Its sad that our politicians A. stoop to this level and B. are allowed, if not encouraged to stoop to this level.
I am, for a large part, conservative - but this petty, Bible-thumping, morality that seems to be the driving force behind so many "conservative issues" is one of the most disgusting things I've ever encountered. Religion, more specifically, religion-derived morality, has no place, what-so-ever, in government.
And government has no place, what-so-ever, in peoples personal lives. The government is not there to define right and wrong for us, or to protect us from ourselves. Thats not the intent of the government of this nation - it is simply what we have allowed them to become. And now, we are subject to the whim of that particular monster.