This man....

In an age of burgeoning enlightenment, came this man....

Some thought him criminal for advocating free health care!  It seemed appropriate to him to see the poor given their health just as the rich seemed to have it, yet those within the social power structure thought this criminal and seditious.

He advocated programs to feed people when food was hard to find.  In an age where people were ever more encouraged to find their own food, to take care of themselves rather than rely on the administration, this man spoke out that they should be fed.

He clearly stated that people should pay their taxes.

He sought to amend the laws regarding our bondage to old archaic laws on sexuality, food, employment, clothing and socialization.

He demanded a change in the monetary system and encouraged people to look upon the lowest of foreign neighbors as worthwhile.

Who was this man who advocated food programs, health care, tax collection, and would take the hand of the "lowest" person despite arguments from the Conservative Elite and Rich?

No.  Come on!  Not even close!

So, tell me again why This Man's "followers"
 would be so against these very things???

Ok, I take some liberties here, but you get my point.
-randy

still on the subject of pajamas in public

Good Morning Everyone!

  I'm sitting here in my pajamas....not.  Far too cold for that.  But, I had to work last night and realized the conundrum  of our legislature; how to make people dress civilly.  Answer:  no pajamas in public.  How simple.  Of course....

  And, if we all dressed fashionably, with a nice blouse and dark pants, belt and shoes matching - of course, then surely we would all look just so snazzy, so respectable, refined and refreshing.  A catwalk contestant.

Right?

Well, here is one just such.... 

The Scourge of the year 2012 - wearing pajamas is evidently some serious stuff.

Hello Friends;

  As you read this article, I'd like you to consider the following things not being considered high topic for consideration of this government official:  Food for the hungry, unemployment, gas prices, water shortage, health care for the elderly, heat, hope, care, consideration, peace, love, spirit, dance, song, laughter, life....

And, what is important?  someone wore pajamas in public.  My goodness!  Alert the Media!  Get my name in the papers!!!! 

Fools, damned fools, and politicians.....

hugs;
randy
Louisiana Official Moves to Ban Wearing Pajamas in Public

But will this apply to Pajama Jeans?

By Courtney Subramanian
@cmsub
January 17, 2012
53inShare.10

The pajama party might be over for residents of Caddo Parish in northwest Louisiana, the Shreveport Times reports.



Michael Williams, a Caddo commissioner, is proposing an ordinance that will prohibit locals from wearing pajama pants in public after an incident at a local Walmart offended the official and other customers. Williams said one of a group of young men clad in pajama pants revealed his private parts, inciting the idea for the ban.

“If you can’t [wear pajamas] at the boardwalk or courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public? Today it’s pajamas,” Williams told the Times. “Tomorrow it’s underwear. Where does it stop?”

Underwear tomorrow might be a little extreme. But some residents are bothered by the idea of banning pajamas in public. Tracy Carter, a resident of Shreveport, told the Times she and her three young children wear pajamas in public often. “I can get out of the bed and go to the store, and they’re covering everything,” she said. “I’ve got a 3-year-old, a 5-year-old and a 12-year old to deal with.”

A major issue with the ordinance is defining what constitutes pajamas. Williams said a possible solution is specifying any item sold in the sleepwear section of department stores. He also suggested violators do community service rather than serve jail time.

The city of Shreveport, which resides in Caddo Parish, has experience with public dress code. The city instituted a no-saggy pants law, and reported 31 misdemeanor summons for locals wearing pants too low in 2011, according to police spokesman Bill Goodin.

Perhaps pants prohibition will continue in Louisiana, when Williams plans to poll his commission colleagues in February on the possible ordinance.

All men are created equal....

Do you know this name:  Jessica Ahlquist ?  If you do not, look her up.  I just read about her on Sammy's blog.  Thank you, Sammy.

  So, a quick run down on Ms. Jessica:  A 16 yr. old girl who had the temerity of arguing that the state public school should not be the place for banners focused on religion.  How evil of her, huh?

  What made me stop and think, though, was that there are people who are threatened by this and there in threatening her.  And, why?  Why is this such an issue?  Are not these things clearly specified in the constitutional law so very plain that we shouldn't even be having this debate?  What else is in there?  How about the line "All men are created equal..."

 So, I researched this a bit and found that our founding fathers, many of whom had slaves, did not mean ALL men... more like all free property owning men.  Well, speaking as a White, Free, Property Owning Man - did I cover all the bases? - let me say the following to those who need to be right all the time:

1.   I am a Christian.  It defines me to a great degree, helping me to see the world in the light of a Loving Creator.  It helps me to know that there is more to this world than what I see.

•  I believe my faith is a right of my birth.  I was born in a country where I am free to believe in a religion of my choice.  I can go to a church, etc., without the state dictating my beliefs. 
• I believe my neighbor's faith is a right of his birth.   Just because I am Christian does not mean that she/he has to be.  I am not threatened by my neighbor's religion because his religion doesn't violate my right to believe what I believe, nor does it invalidate my beliefs.  It is our right as Americans to believe or NOT believe what we will.
• I believe my faith is my own.  While by no means am I alone in my beliefs, my experiences and thoughts are going to color the way I see God, the way I read His Word, and the way I translate that into meaning in my world.  And, as I believe in my heart and mind, it is there that I find God, not in the club of acceptance for meeting a certain criteria of attributes as a person.  Christianity is not a club, it is not a badge of rank.  It is a personal belief.

2.   I am Gay.  A homosexual.  I really don't care if you like me for that or not.  Ok, I do... I'm still working on my personal image and self worth. 

• Being Gay does not mean that I want anything more from life than someone who is not gay.  I want to live my life freely and happily.  I want to have the same rights as those who are not gay, and in turn I pay my taxes and meet my obligations.
• Being Gay does not mean that I should receive things that others should not.  I don't ask heterosexuals to have my permission to marry another loving adult.  I don't ask hetero's to refrain from holding hands in public, to dress a certain way, to talk a certain way, or to go to certain places.  I expect the same.  The exact same.

  So, having said all of this from the perspective of one who actually meets the definition cited here:  "For Americans, equality is a word that has been expanded in its definition since the founding of the country. For Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers, the phrase "...that all men are created equal..." really meant that "all free, property-owning males are created equal".  "Jefferson's restrictive definition, that "people are of equal moral worth, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law" http://mattbrundage.com/publications/jefferson-equality/  I would like to ask all republican, tea party believing and constitutionalists to please shut the hell up.  You do not have a right to foist your beliefs on others simply because you are loud and obnoxious.  You do not have the right to demand public prayer, etc.  You do not have the right to deny others of the same rights you enjoy.  Thomas Jefferson said so.

An interesting article for what it didn't say...

Hello Friends;

  I read an interesting article on Yahoo today.  http://news.yahoo.com/america-plummeting-murder-rate-3-theories-160000856.html   Despite the title, it appears that the main thrust of the article was not that the murder rate was falling in such great degrees so much as that the degree to which it impacts the total number of deaths per year has changed.  Specifically, health related issues are increasingly more apt to kill us off than we are ourselves. 
  I went in search of some information, and found the this graph.  It gave me some historical data, appearing to end around 2009 or so.  From what I understand, the problem with statistics on things like murder is that they first need a conviction before they can be determined to be a murder..so, that pushes the numbers back a couple years.
  So, if you read the article I linked, you would see that they didn't really indicate that the rate has fallen for murder, but that other things are becoming more dangerous to the human population than other humans.
  I can't help but to wonder what other factors influenced the murder rates.  If we had information regarding drug use/abuse/traffic, if we had information regarding mental health, or even economic indicators.  Whatever the reasons, it would seem quite clear that total crime peaked in the early 90's, and then sharply fell.  This is across the board - except for the issues of rape and murder which seem to run generally even despite a small rise, which I found statistically interesting.  Why?  Well, it would seem that they don't respond to the same influences as most other crimes, and further that they aren't statistically controlled by some of the "tough on crime" policies that MAY be influencing the other crimes. 
  If we were to look at the increase in prison populations, we would perhaps see a correlation between the rise in population and the fall of general crimes.  A presumption would be that indicated a recidivism issue.  And even yet with that information, we see that the murder and rape numbers are relatively unchanged.  I read such an article regarding the increase in prison population here:  http://theweek.com/article/index/100575/the-prison-nation   It was an addendum to the first article.

  So, why are these issues important?  Well, a couple of reasons, really.  And, there are some foggy ties here, so bear with me.  First, I thought about the increasing age median of the population, indicating that not only are more people closer to the retirement age than the employment age, but that those who are retired are living longer.  This increases the costs associated with care while decreasing the number of people able to contribute tax dollars.  Further, young people are finding it difficult to find work.  Our population has increased, but many of the high paying jobs of the 20th century are now in the developing countries.  The shift towards information technology is great, but the ability of technology to handle much of that itself is deteriorating the job market. 
  A second interesting fact is that the prison population has grown so dramatically.  Policies in my state have changed the way the prisons go about garnering their supplies; where once the prisoners planted crops and cared for live stock, made their furniture and even provided some degree of outside sourcing, the new policies have the near total majority of supplies coming from vendors.  So, as the population increases to astronomical amounts, creating greater and greater drain on the tax dollars, economy, and other resources, the laws that put these men there for increasing amounts of time are actually exacerbating the problem.  Is it effective in lowering recidivistic crime?  Perhaps.  But, perhaps as the economy worsens, as more and more are unable to feed their families and have the nice things they want, perhaps the less scrupulous manners of getting those things will again rise?  Who knows.
  This is all to say, I guess, that we need to look toward our future.  We are wasting greater and greater of our resources for little return and our expected costs are going to increase out of proportion to our sources for revenue.  What can our leaders do to answer this?