Response To Steven. . . In Epic Fail Blog Form

I don't know Steven. . . seems to me like you can judge the message by the people with which it resonates. For instance, crazy talk about comets being mother ships attracts crazy kooks. Crazy talk about "the real Obama" (who happens to associate with terrorists, might be a an Islamic jyhadist, and probably hates America) attracts hill people. Is this McCain's message? Absolutely. Did you hear what Colin Powell said about the agenda of the Republican leadership as it regards this notion during his declaration of support for Obama? I mean that's the fuckin' proverbial smokin' gun. Let's see if I can find some quotes for you. . . oh how about here at the Huffington Post?

Besides which. . . it's not like the fuckin' hill people are a "fringe" group like the fuckin' white power morons that supported Ron Paul. These fuckin' hill people happen to make up a decent portion of the electorate that supports McCain. Can we judge McCain by this element? You better fuckin' believe it! I mean, I think you could get a decent idea about Hitler from the Nazi's, or a decent idea about Manson from his women, or a decent idea about Jim Jones from the kooks that followed him. Why? Because the message that these individual leaders carried resonated with their followers. These asshats peddle their moronic, racist, simplistic, ridiculously stupid view of the world and it is picked up by the fuckin' hill people. Go figure. Quite frankly, what the Republican campaign has done truly boggles my mind in that it hasn't alienated every non-racist around. . . or maybe it has and that only racists are left supporting McCain. You might come to that conclusion by watching a video of a fuckin' Palin rally. I sure as fuck did. And not just that one. I've seen other fuckin' clips that churn my stomach. Don't think for an instant that this is isolated in any way.

Which brings me to the following in a totally non-sequiter fashion. I have been thinking a lot recently due to some remarks made by someone who will remain nameless. A friend at lunch one day began the ol' "it's my money, not theirs" discussion about "deserving" wealth. I was talking with this nameless friend (who wants to remain anonymous because he doesn't want anyone to know that he wears a tinfoil hat) about the idea of "deserving" money. Does someone who garners wealth in our society "deserve" that money as opposed to someone who is poor? What entitles him to the "deserving" of wealth? I mean, do the poor in Africa "deserve" poverty? How about the joys (which are many though I'm going to only list 2 here. . . but we could go on trust me) that come with poverty like starvation and AIDS. Do women deserve less money than men because they are paid less on average for the same work? Do minorities deserve a poor education because they happen to be born into a poor school system? What do people really "deserve"? As near as I can tell this is a fuckin' holdover from the fuckin' Victorians and that fuckin' rise of the "Protestant work ethic". Well you know what?

Seriously. . . fuck the Victorians. Why is this practically the only vestige left of Victorian morality left? Get it the fuck out. To think that people "deserve" an end condition separate from others is quite frankly ludicrous and smacks of the ridiculous logic that permeated fuckin' Victorian predestination dogma. Somehow though, we got rid of the idea of fuckin' predestination and kept the other piece. Go fuckin' figure. You know the Victorians also had some kooky ideas about sexuality, church and state, censorship, etc. We seem to have in general rejected most of those. . . why can't this specter of predestination pass as well. Seriously, it's about fuckin' time.