the golden rule (u.s. edition)

Most everyone has heard the traditional Golden Rule in one form or another - Treat others as you wish to be treated.  But just as the U.S. refuses to adopt the metric system or learn more than one language, we have our own version of the Golden Rule as well.  Here, it goes something like this:

WHOMEVER HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES

What makes the American version so disturbing is its causal relationship.  Having gold, or more generally, wealth, certainly shouldn't preclude someone from a legislative position, but it shouldn't be a requirement either...and holy shit, is it EVER a requirement!  Then the purpose of any legislation can always be boiled down to two main goals:

1. Making the rich even richer (at any expense other than their own)

1. Keeping power in the hand of the rich (to ensure #1 is never threatened)

I am aware that using the word "rich" is taboo now, and the more appropriate way to phrase #1 would say something like, making the job creators even more job create-y ...but fuck you and your so-called "job creators".  The next person to use the phrase "job creator" without doing so in a nasally, mocking tone will experience the methodical annihilation of everything to be loved and cherished in life, until finally the only job creation that will occur will be when the crime scene clean-up crew is called to scrub your minimal amount of brain tissue off the sleazy motel walls after you've had your last meal: a self-served lead-and-despair sandwich.  I hate you.

You may also argue that there may be legislation aimed at something other than those two points - for example, laws made up by wrinkly old dicks that only have penises that regulate what a woman can or cannot do with her own vagina.  However, I argue that such a blatant and unnecessary overreach of legislative power is a perfect way to discourage at least 51% of the masses, hence supporting #2, which is required for #1.

Bottom line is that we will never win - "we" meaning those who are not independently wealthy as well as capable of independent thought.

I think Jon Stewart accurately described this vicious cycle as a wealth incumbency.  Rich people get into office, then they change the rules so they are not only making themselves richer and retaining their power positions, but they are also keep others from getting rich and/or into positions of power.  I would love an explanation on how this is supposed to be fair, or even legal...preferably from someone who is not one of the ones manipulating the system for personal gain.

If you don't believe me that rules are manipulated to benefit the rich, consider the new voter purging laws that have been cropping up.  Oh, excuse me, they are "voter ID" laws, and under the guise of preventing the very serious problem of in-person voter fraud, they will disenfranchise large numbers of primarily democratic voters, minorities and the poor in particular.  To justify such an egregious violation of the constitutional right to vote that is endowed to every citizen of the United States of America - especially one that happens to correlate with political affiliation, race, and economic status - voter ID fraud must be rampant nationwide, right?  It most certainly is!!  In fact, there have been a whopping 10 documented cases of in-person voter fraud since the year 2000!!!!!  I am a big fan of statistics, and 10 cases since 2000 is called - these are gonna be big words so get ready - statistically insignificant.  In other words, they don't fucking matter and can't possibly have any effect on the outcome of a state- and/or nationwide election EVER!!!!!


This is offensive regardless of circumstance, but when you consider the fact that Romney is currently garnering 0% of the African-American vote, it seems pretty obvious that this selective prevention of the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote for minorities will have a serious impact.  Not serious like 10 cases in 12 years, I mean actually serious.

I think what is most disturbing of all is how blatantly wrong and one-sided these actions are.  Usually republicans will at least have the decency to make some shit up, but they aren't even trying anymore.  This time they aren't even denying it on any front. They are sticking with the actual number of 10 cases (any more than that and they'd have to take off their shoes to count, and that would be a hassle) and yet they are still able to convince the ape-people that this is a big deal and that violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens is justified.  It is certainly easier to support when it's not your rights being violated, isn't it, rich white guy?

Oh and I'm sure "this is in the best interest of the people", so long as you're using people to mean anyone who is not poor or black or Hispanic or old or young.  Rather than say all the ones we don't mean, let's just say what you do mean: white people.  And because America's nickname "land of opportunity" has historically only applied to white people, the wealth gap has only continued to grow even through to today.  In fact, the 2010 US Census showed that white families tend to have 22x the wealth of black families and 15x the wealth of Hispanic families.  So fortunately for white people (and very unfortunately for everyone else), minority families and poor families tend to be one in the same.  Why is this relevant to the conversation?  Because first the people with money and in power (white men, weird) make sure no one else can get any money, then they implement laws like this to make sure no one else has a vote.  Retaining the money and power... where does it end??

If voter ID laws disproportionately affect only one candidate, and it's the other candidate's party who is putting these laws into place, isn't that essentially cheating??  I would say so.  Take Pennsylvania for example.  PA pushed a law through despite fervent protests, and after it was enacted, then got the numbers where they found out that over 758,000 people do not have state issued photo ID, most of them poor and/or African American.  If you can't afford a car, and neither can any of your friends, why would you need a license?  Then, state house republican leader Mike Turzai said out loud , "Voter ID - which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done!" like he was all proud of himself for cheating.  Like I said, they don't even try to hide it anymore.  Worst part was, he got applause!!!  I know the crowd was other republicans, but if a guy on my team was bragging about cheating, I would be embarrassed, I wouldn't cheer for being a douchebag.  Fucking idiots.  (PA ID law article: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/161304725.html)

I would like to note that yes, I am aware I said republicans.  I realize that there are exceptions and I am sure there are democrats who are rich old racist white guys...but if you are going to identify yourself with a party, you will be generally labeled with its platform.  It is the republicans that are creating and implementing these voter purging laws to deliberately reduce democratic voter turnout.  Plus, it's the republicans that have become the 'daddy knows best' party, where daddy just happens to be a rich old white guy.  And he definitely doesn't know best.  He just thinks he does.
Please note that just because I think stacking the deck so the benefits are received most by those who need them the least is complete and utter BULLSHIT does not mean I am a communist.  And if you are even considering an argument that socialism is ruining America just fucking don't, because you obviously have no clue what the word "socialism" even means.  America is being ruined by the fucking ungrateful, shitty people in it.  For example:

The same people who will collect unemployment, eat foods with farm subsidized ingredients, and travel on public roads will also attend a rally held by the hate-spewing-fear-monger-of-the-week to protest against having this terrible socialized Obamacare that was "crammed down our throats" (that's what Fox "News" said so it must be true) by our Nazi-Muslim-Kenyan-terrorist-and-oh-dear-god-BLACK president (Nazis = universal healthcare...I totally see the connection)... and come to think of it, he isn't even really president since he wasn't born here, right?  If all 311,591,917 citizens of the U.S. didn't get to personally examine his "long-form" birth certificate, he must be a secret Kenyan-Muslim terrorist with a racist radical Christian preacher.

NEWS FLASH:  AMERICA IS BEING DESTROYED BY ASSHOLES, NOT HEALTHCARE!!!  Seriously, when the fuck have you ever even heard of a "long-form" birth certificate?  And if that's the only way to prove citizenship, go get your long-form birth certificate... and don't forget the super-official Donald Trump stamp of approval!  If you don't have one, we get to deport you.  Also, if your listed father & mother are also brother & sister, or you agreed with anything in the preceding example, you are a subpar species of half-human, half-ape, and obviously are not able to make reasonable decisions.  You will have the option to apply for temporary status, however you will be prohibited from freely speaking about anything, ever.  If you do wish to speak in public, or just in general, you will have to get express written consent from a human being who:

1. is NOT inbred
2. has MULTIPLE teeth
3. can read and write (10th grade level minimum)
4. answers the question "Do you believe in evolution?" with "Are you fucking kidding me?" and/or a slap in the mouth/kick to the crotch/etc.

**Note: consenting human being must meet ALL of the criteria listed above for valid speech exception.

I really have no problem with people accumulating wealth.  In fact, I hope to do it someday. :)  What I do have a problem with is when people with wealth try to prevent everyone else from having it too.  Or even having the chance  to get it.  Mitt Romney certainly didn't grow up in poverty, but he did accumulate most of his own wealth.  I'll talk about how shady he did so some other time, because that will take a while.  However, when recently asked about student loans, he suggested that people should "borrow money from your parents if you have to" or "just get as much education as you can afford"...or better yet, to join the military (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/08/20/714791/romney-sidesteps-students-question-about-mounting-student-loan-crisis/).  This is why having someone in charge that is so out of touch with the "real world" is so dangerous.  He doesn't know that most parents don't have tens of thousands of extra dollars to pay for their kids to go to school.  Yet someone who doesn't know ANYTHING about not having money could be in a position where he gets make laws that make it harder for people without any money to get it.  We've all heard how you need a college degree to have any real chance at getting a good job... so to make sure only the buddies in my club (rich white guys) can get them, let's make it so no one else even has a chance.

So much for opportunities, huh?