Maybe Age Is What Makes Things More Interesting

Many years ago, getting interested in Northwest American history due to reading a rather scholarly biography of Dr John McLoughlin, would be somewhat unlikely. Now that I think of it, I believe that was because I had not yet learned to compensate for whatever it was that made reading tedious and almost physically painful. In school I faked it, and because retention of what I could finish on tests was high, I scored as if I could read well and had read a lot. So much for tests, they often miss the boat. Then again, many of my friends were relative illiterates so I guess it is all according to scale.

One thing this latest reading brings up is my view that people and culture have changed. Corruption, skullduggery and the like have been with us a long long time, but other behaviors were not so prevalent or acceptable as they are today, in my opinion. People were, in the main, tougher and had a stronger code of personal values. At times those values included not so valuable tenets but a code is a code. We are whinier. And way more sissy in that people sue if they fall down or something breaks or they spill coffee, or if the operation has complications (Thanks John Edwards, you worm head)

It is interesting that this biography by necessity contains a lot about the Hudson's Bay company and other fur trading concerns of early 19th century and beyond, as well as life in the Northwest before the US and the Brits could decide on boundaries. They both had access to ports, such as they were, and regional governments were not in the picture until just prior to the gold rush. Even then they were minimal, as all government should be. There was more inter dependence and voluntary interaction between local tribes and traders than is probably thought. It was an interesting dynamic all the way around. But when more people came, and Oregon became a territory, there were some real slime ball maneuvers. Not that all was roses prior but now they did it "legal".

To many of the churchy folks it may be a surprise. Not to me. The most two faced and treacherous of the people were the missionaries. Even the good ones failed to completely stand up to their greedy thieving brethren.

Those holy impostors were helped, given land, basically rescued because they arrived so haggard, yet when opportunity arose they really put the screws to their benefactor for personal gain and power. Lawyers took advantage as well, as soon as things went under US jurisdiction. They lied about certain matters and got some sucker to pass ill informed bills in Wash DC, and by the time the news got back to affected parties, it was too late to set the record straight.

Slooowww turn around time on communication.

Same tactics are in play today. Although some methods have changed. No wonder they want control of the internet and cry about bloggers.

Which reminds me that newspapers wanted federal bailout. haven't heard much about it in a few months. What a crock. There'd certainly be no barrier to dissent and honest reporting by organizations funded by government.

There are too many thought provoking items which this history provides to list at the moment. I can't help ranting on about some of them.

Biting the hand that fed you is a syndrome we see daily. Much of the dialog which labels "the rich" as villain is just that. Most families making 250 grand are not in any way exploiting those of us who make less, and they are already paying way more tax than I do. That BS that existing tax cuts gave them a bigger break than your average resentful worker is simply false.

All previous cuts did was rape them with a somewhat smaller organ, reducing the pain slightly. It's still rape, so those who buy into class envy and hatred can continue to feel good even if they cut taxes a little more.

I'm so sorry most people fail to understand the concept of federalism(or think it is irrelevant to them), why states were supposed to be more autonomous and the difference between true state rights and violation of basic individual rights. Just because an issue goes under a particular label does not make that label accurate or legitimate.

For example, I disagree with Lincoln's view regarding states having the right to secede from the union, however no one has a right to force other humans into involuntary servitude. Slavery is not why that war was fought. It was a bizarre factor used more as a military tactic. Territories ready to become states were ready to fight rather than be slave states. Like always, kernels of truth cloaking bushels of lies. But on the point of secession--this ain't the damned Mafia. is it? When you can't quit the club without someone pulling a gun, you know you're in the wrong club. What a dilemma at that point.

Why do we trade with slave states and give them power in the UN? Maybe because now, like then, wars and policy are motivated by something other than ideals and a sense of right and wrong, (yet claims of idealism are often made as these activities go forward). The UN is an unworkable bullshit concept anyway. It ignores the reality of over centralization; that it leads to diminishing returns and exceedingly increased corruption, tyranny, and death. Since the inception of that corporation we have never quit being at war. Except we didn't call it that in all cases.

So hard to accept the truth of it. If you say a war is or was a scam and not noble, it casts a shadow over the sincere soldiers who gave it all for their country, many of whom performed nearly super human acts of heroism. But that emotional loyalty and empathy for good people in the military clouds the truth; which is that unscrupulous people in government have been abusing their position to use the armed forces for purposes other than the defense and security of the nation. I think most people know that is true, deep down, but admitting it has many tough psychological ramifications. They need to come to grips because this conduct on the part of those who control national defense will ruin this nation as much as the other abuses they are committing.

Back to slave state issues.

In modern times I've heard people promote what amounts to involuntary servitude under the label "volunteerism". You are forced into that in order to graduate high school right here in SD county. Isn't it an oxymoron when you are required to volunteer?

In today's environment the states which promote nullification (refuse to enforce federal laws which exceed the constitution) are actually promoting freedom and individual rights. So, here's a case of state's rights which is used to promote liberty, in contrast to times when that label was used to limit it. The latter case was a faulty one because states are bound by the bill of rights, and rationalizing doesn't change their meaning.

On the federal level having three branches to check and balance one another was one defense against a government whose power would never cease to grow. A further check, not generally discussed is the duty of states to not enforce any law which goes beyond the constitutional right of the feds. This was done way back in the 1800's by states that refused to cooperate with runaway slave legislation--they would not capture and return people who escaped slavery and were in their state. It was against constitutional authority to force them to do so. It was a measure put in by the forerunners of today's democrat party whose main forming principle was the perpetuation of slavery. I'd suggest they continue to spearhead the movement against individual liberty and unhampered rights to choose one's own destiny.

Republicans have certainly helped them along, but give credit where credit is due, the dems have led the way overall. It does sicken me to realize what a joint effort it has been. I can't in good conscience support either team. Makes it hard to be a sports fan. Those two aberrant organizations play the game of treating my life as if it is a privilege granted by government. I don't recognize that as a legitimate game at all. It goes against all that is right, moral, holy, natural or decent.

This view will either land me in big trouble one day, or maybe it is a more widespread outlook than I think and it will simply land me on a team I can back in a game I find appealing.

Odd that various superiority buffs who fancy themselves elite thinkers (know what's best for everyone else) swore that I'd outgrow my "unrealistic" passion and idealism by the time I reached 30 or so. That started to happen but then I found myself totally unable to take the view that any gain was good no matter what the source, as long as it was marginally legal.

Legal and right have no relation to one another in many cases. Like the guy who has grants to teach uncircumcised men in Africa how to clean their willy after sex. That is tax money. WTF? Why not pay dancing girls to go door to door willy washing right here at home? It would provide economic stimulation and relief, in this country, where it is sadly needed.

This is why I refuse to apply for grants. I have yet to think of anything that I feel everyone in America should pay for involuntarily. If I have a project I believe in, I will seek private, voluntary donation or investment only. It may be naive, but it is honorable. The present system does not encourage honor, and is not honorably administered. Unfortunately most of the academic world is totally dependent upon this set up, so they rationalize and scheme to not only maintain it but enlarge it---meaning take more tax money you may or may not want to spend on their projects.

afterthought re missionaries and holy men/women/hermaphrodites:
regardless of religion, there is almost always the attitude among the religious leaders that they are entitled to special treatment and claim on your wealth. They see themselves as above those who produce and trade in order to earn a living. Much like career politicians. They often have such a distorted sense of logic that they easily rationalize when it comes to deceptions which increase their power influence and wealth. When they want to get in partnership with government or gain the public stage in political issues, watch out. Not to be trusted. Although I question the overall national reaction and attention the NY imam is getting, I believe without reservation that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth and he is not motivated in any humanitarian love everyone mode of belief. One story to the english speaking press, another to the arabic.
Still, I remain of the view that it is NY's issue and problem. They have chosen how to handle it. Or their typically sleazy officials have. All about zoning and local government. Until, of course, tax money is used to sport him around the world for unknown purpose.