12-03-08: Okay, who thinks I’m too strict?

Subject: Okay, who thinks I’m too strict?

Fooey! I’m strict when it comes down to stopping the hurting of innocent people, and liberal when it comes down to anything else. Just don’t allow anyone to have a legitimate gripe against you, that’s all.

12-3-08

Sharing the wealth in a bounce-back society (this is pursuant to my 11-11-08 economic advice letter):

Obama thinks the traditional taxing the rich to give to the (working) poor is the answer. But I think he hasn’t yet “calculated” that if we can transfer the wealth and save, say, a buck ($1) for a worker who today makes say $8 an hour, so he’s essentially now making $9 an hour (which seems like a great good-deed on the surface), after the next high school graduation, those applications will tell the employer that they’ve figured they can come in and do the same job for only $7 an hour, thereby essentially making $8 an hour, still enough to get an apartment as long at the girl friend is also working. I.e.: back to square-one. So, what have we achieved? We’ve achieved pissing off Joe the Plumber even more – that’s all. Now, when the government gives a whole heaping $6 an hour to the kid, he’s probably not going to come in and do all that work for a measly $1 or $2 an hour. Right? But even though the groceries, rent and utilities are paid, there are still new video games, concerts, romantic nights out to McDonalds with his lady, etc. that he can’t pay for. But wait, the employer noticed that he can still make the same amount of money having the kid still come to work for a whopping $7 or $8 an hour! So now the kid (now making $13 to $14 an hour) can afford all the stuff most people don’t get until they’re 30. And the employer is even happier paying the $7 or $8 because he’s actually making more money because he doesn’t have to pay all the taxes. Now, the key question is, how many 30-year-olds who make $13 to $14 per hour today quit working 6 months out of the year, just because they “can” live on about half of that??? That is, they “can” move back into a dumpy apartment and not be able to do anything else??? So why does everyone think the kid won’t come in for the same much higher wage??? Only you economic “experts” out there know why, but I guess I’m too dumb to be able to figure it out yet. If anything, I’d think the kid making a total income of only $7 to $8 an hour would be the one who’d be more discouraged about coming into work, than his former locker partner making $13 to $14 an hour.

All that really makes an economy strong is getting people to work. So if you want to “really” help the little guy, listen to me, not people who already know it all.

And from the employer’s point of view, with my program there won’t be a minimum wage requirement, so employers can try to get people to do the job for $1 or $2 an hour more, but will probably find that folks won’t come to work for less than maybe $5 or $6, or whatever it would be. So the person who already has basic need expenses met, will determine what employers will end up paying them, which is how it works today, but now to the advantage of the poorest employees.

Traditionally, people on welfare don’t work because there are still many other people willing to come in and work for just a bit more than the welfare pays. So, for the welfare recipients, that’s too much work for too little additional money. Every time a liberal in the government tries to help the poor, the dumb, the misfits, the ugly, etc. by raising welfare, the less they will get a job; and, in turn, the more the government lessens welfare, the more they end up getting a job, simply because the difference is greater and makes it worth working for. That problem is entirely based on the bottleneck belief that we shouldn’t give welfare to everyone; but, my plan forces all employers to pay a higher “difference” to motivate people on “my” welfare system to come into work. And the great thing is that employers will be paying employees less (or, the same, at most). The key is giving an equal amount of welfare to everyone, which will force a greater “difference” that employers will have to pay. You see, when everyone is on the same welfare, no one will be willing to work for just a bit more like they will today, forcing all employers to pays an additional $5 or $6 more an hour, instead of a measly $1 or $2 an hour, diminishing incentive. As a result, my plan is the only way to give more to the working poor: Lessening poor people’s income taxes and even giving “earned income” to the working poor will never lead to more for the working poor, simply because employers will continually find others willing to work for that same lesser amount balanced out, or just need not give as high of a raise the next time, balancing the government gift back down to what it was before. Conversely, if there was a 20% across-the-board income tax, it wouldn’t end up hurting the poor, because employers would simply have to pay a higher balancing wage. Again, there’s a point of income where the poor would start looking for other jobs, etc. that would force employers to have to increase salaries to match the increase the poor employees would have to pay in higher income tax.

Everyone would like my plan. So “dumb” is the only thing in the way.

Today, all technological advancements do is lay people off work. With my system, it will slowly increase everyone’s basic needs check from the government to balance it out, either allowing a few more people to not have to work, or allowing a bit lessening of hours in the week needing to be worked by everyone. Sounds like I’m trying to get to the place where machines do most all of it, where everyone won’t have to work as many hours. I know you like it, but you don’t believe it: I know it doesn’t seem possible, but that’s why you’ve never heard this theory before. All I say is look at the reality why people who make “more” come to work, and why they have a much better attitude in doing so. Rush Limbaugh and similar has all brainwashed us into believing that everyone would stop working and be glad to be on welfare if (1) everyone could get on it, and (2) if it paid enough for one to barely make it. But this notion is just spin intended to decrease welfare, limited by the one-step thinking agenda, to help the rich optimize their wealth. And all logic says that the more you tax the rich, all the poor people are going to eventually stay at the same degree of poor anyway, simply because employers aren’t going to all-of-a-sudden start paying all their employees more when they can get the same job done for less.

Maybe God’s blocked all your minds so I’m the only one who comes up with the best economic system, so as to follow me on the other more important issues. He can make you all think it’s raining frogs also, if He sees a good purpose.

Sure, women won’t “need” a husband anymore if they can pay the entire apartment rent on their own with their new $13 to $14 an hour, so this will also curb dishonest prostitution a lot, to lean toward an eventual open-sex society, so people will start liking one another better. But, I can’t help it, that’s just what “fits” in a perfect overall plan. So, this new overall plan (which I’ve always connoted to) will cover / override my past Nationally Paid Child Support Program, which just was the solution to that particular marriage problem. If this new overall plan doesn’t work, then the plan only for children would still be beneficial.

Sure, we can still bail-out big companies, and not in every case. Just if they’re really, really worth bailing out. Sure, the government won’t have to pay too high a wage to its employees and suppliers, because it would compete with private enterprise too much (because no one would work for private enterprise, if working for the government paid a lot more. And that’d be communism.). The government is supposed to only do the things private enterprise doesn’t do.

Obama wants to better the opportunity for kids to go to college. With Obama’s traditional plan targeted for the working poor, kids still won’t be able to afford college. With the government paying for all their basic needs, all kids can afford to attend college! Again, it’s what is called a “perfect” plan. The only thing in its way is the realization of how dumb our forefathers really were. I mean thousands of years went by before we started using the cotton gin. Why? It’s because all their forefathers were too “dumb” to know how to make it. I just have a more charming way of explaining it. Or, a more “precise” way of explaining it (“dumb”). And “precise” tells the true story better than the “charming” way, which only makes more friends. If our forefathers were “dumb” back then, then what could we possibly be today? Hopefully you said it, so we can admit the reality that no one wants to admit. Ask George W. Bush. “Admitting” a reality is “realizing” that it is “possible,” therefore allowing more people to… think outside the box. But, I’m sure no one is going to even consider my economic advice until “someone” who they trust already knows it all, tells them it’s the thing to consider.

Social Security? Won’t need it anymore; because this is basically it. Otherwise, I’ve heard there’s a big problem with Social Security in the future the way the current system is working.

Possibly the government could pay the “basic needs” allowance via giving everyone a government banking account based on Social Security numbers. And/or, could pay directly to renters, utility companies, groceries, etc. for people that would blow it otherwise. And it’d all be transferable unless there are balances due.

No more unemployment benefits, as this government allotment will be it.

The general rule with contractors is that as long as there’s money to be made, they’ll do the job, as long as they have the time (usually daytime). I don’t know anyone who says they work hard until they’ve made a certain goal (say even $50,000, $75,000, whatever), then stop for the rest of the year and just stay home, passing up all that additional extra work and money that can easily be had. So I don’t think motivation / incentive will be a problem on my plan, just because people will be making more money.

Maybe today’s government thinks they have to maintain a constant lie about something, so the public will stay motivated to work. I can’t think what that could rationally be.

Socialized healthcare, simply paying the doctors and hospitals what they deserve.

Where’s all the stuff going to come from to accommodate all that new spending ability of poor workers, if workers number the same?

–Details Obama says he’d like to see. Well, employers have found that happier workers are more productive workers. So eventually manufacturing will increase to accommodate the increase in consumer product. In-between that time, there’ll just be more Home Depots and Wal-Marts, and less exclusive and expensive department stores. Not all will be gone, just maybe only five where there’s now ten in your city. Obama should like that one. Not Joe the Plumber. Eventually we’ll again have lots of keep up with Ewings stores.

“All my clients have one thing is common: they feed off the people. There’s big money in misery.” –Joe (Nicolas Cage), Bangkok Dangerous (movie), 2008. Hopefully not any more. Hopefully they’ll be “big money” in happiness. Mine’s the only way!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/24/health/webmd/main657624.shtml (CBS News, WebMD), Happy Workers, Better Workers, “Happier Workers Work Better”:

The results showed that the enhanced-care depression treatment group reported a 6.1 percent increased productivity over two years. The intervention improved productivity by 8.2 percent among consistently employed depressed workers.

And what would be the percentage for workers who are naturally (or “really”) happy, versus workers taking antidepressants? Now, do you know how many unhappy workers there are making dirt wages, even in the United States? Yeah! Plus, my plan sounds much more like the way Jesus would want it done. People are always happier workers when they make more “money”! And, my system works most on the country’s most depressed people, and up. Things could soar.

In addition to shutting up Hannity, probably the best feature of giving the base government allotment to everyone, including the rich, is so there won’t have to be an accounting of income, nor the need to police it. And with no more tax – including no more sales tax, personal property tax, etc. – businesses won’t have to keep receipts, etc. if they don’t want to. That’ll definitely allow more “productivity,” by changing all the bookkeeping / accounting people to making goods and services. If instead you say that the free government allotment only goes to poorer people, then everyone will have to save every business receipt and income paper work, detailing the big mess that gets in the way of production / achievement. So with no more taxes, businesses can utilize / optimize their employee for making more things to accommodate all the extra income that people will be making.

States income will all come from the same federal give-out (printing free money) program, based on their populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_safety_net, Social safety net:

The social safety net is a term used to describe a collection of services provided by the state, such as welfare, unemployment benefit, universal healthcare, homeless shelters, the minimum wage and sometimes subsidized services such as public transport, which prevent individuals from falling into poverty beyond a certain level.

…

Supporters of a strong social safety net argue that these programs have resulted in a much lower crime rate and general lower poverty levels in Canadian cities, and this benefits everyone. Critics argue that the taxes required to support the safety net inhibit growth and actually increase the barriers for socio-economic advancement, and that the safety net itself creates a perverse incentive to be unproductive and poor.

The above is not my proposed program; but, the reduced crime rate point is a valid one. The “critics” argument wouldn’t sustain in my program, as no one would lose any of the government allotment by getting a job; where the benefits of getting a job is 100% gravy, therefore 100% incentive, since most people like gravy with their mashed potatoes. My program won’t “inhibit growth” as all jobs will pay beneficially more. Any where there’s something not getting down, again, there’s a new government job, with unlimited subsidizes. No more can the government say we’re not funded to do something, where workers are ready to work, and private enterprise is not taking care of it.

With the above program (not mine), yes, the more welfare you give someone the more they’re not going to want to work; because, again, employers aren’t going to pay people more than they have to, so welfare recipients would only be working for maybe a couple of dollars more an hour, and they usually have to maintain the expense of having a car to take away those few extra dollars. Plus most are mothers raising children, and even the experts tell that the more time parents spend with their own kids the better the kids turn out, opposed to day-care. My program is the ONLY one that will be able to pull poor working people out of the strong limitation barrier of employers who don’t have to pay employees very much; which appears to be what Barack Obama wants to achieve. Raising minimum wage without my program is just going to cause inflation, and everything will eventually bounce back to the same problem: the same poor worker level.

With this Christmas buying downturn, now would be a good time to begin my program, as it would give everyone more spending cash. But I realize because of conservative limited thinking abilities, my plan is likely not implementable for several years if not decades. I just need to present in now, so mankind will at least have it available for the future dumb to know / realize.

Obama’s advisors:

Obama needs to realize his upcoming advisors aren’t really going to know anything that past administration advisors didn’t know. Obama’s advisors will eventually inform him that the country requires a large number of people who work only for basic needs, or the system wouldn’t work. Butm that advice is… wrong; but, does satisfy the one-step thinking limitations. It “appears” everyone should work or starve, but Lewis and Clark’s findings tell a different story concerning what’s really “fair” and what a society bent on optimizing greed, can realize.

Eliminating all taxes:

That alone should get me a call of appreciation from whoever runs the news press in Chester, South Carolina.

Why not make it where everyone who has a full time job has more than basic needs?

You say: Sure, when someone comes up with a plan to accomplish this.

People tell me I’m way too egotistical for anyone to respect my opinion:

Well, I could cop-out by saying someone didn’t do something very smart, but then somehow try to say they really aren’t dumb; but, I just think it’s better to let ‘em have it: 100% insults for things that hurt innocent people, and sincere compliments for doing something right / smart. “Dumb” just happens to be the main reason for hurting innocent people. Change it to just “evil” then I’ll change my comments to something you’ll all be more proud of. “Evil” is really much easier to change in someone; “dumb” is where the real / difficult challenge is. I’m just not that artistic to be that kind of dishonest. That’s the kind of dishonesty that gets the high paying jobs. So, I’ll just work on it if I ever need to work for you.

Since more time is needed to explain insults, my compliments usually don’t get written. And, because my stuff is long enough the way it is. So, if I leave the compliments out, realize that that’s not where the need for change really is, and “somehow” just like me without them.

Slow downloading websites:

If I yell and insult it, it’ll come in quicker.

One extreme or the other:

Obama’s used to people who are basically either 100% for him or 100% against him. So I have to be at least someone he can trust; though, if he’s normal, I’ve lost him at my first insult. It is really a good thing to have some Hannity’s to keep Democrats in line, but at the same time Hannity’s will exaggerate the truth, make mountains out of molehills, etc. Bringing Bill Clinton down for the extremely frivolous Monica Lewinski scandal, instead of his bombing of innocent people in Yugoslavia and Iraq, shows that there is a desperate need for someone who can explain what can and can’t really hurt us / others. People really aren’t any smarter today than they were back in 1998, unless I’m the one who’s caused it. And if such is the case, when I’m dead and gone, the next generation leaders will recede back to the same old human default emotionally one-step-thinking based “dumb.”

I just read one of my several children’s books about lying for use in my website, where the lie is a monster that keeps growing larger, uglier, and… dumber. So if a children’s book can call someone “dumb” I should be allowed to – especially when it’s targeting the same kind of evil. Apparently, learning to not lie is something that has to be taught. One book mentions that a lie is also “keeping silent when you know the truth and should speak it.” And that’s a Catholic publication.

Excerpt from something unpublished I wrote 11-3-02:

With society and the Church still stressing the importance of “marriage,” it places children from divorced parents in even more of a feeling of victimization. Then, with the mainstream Church still demoralizing the sex lives of the single / divorced adults, it just adds to the mix / distraction. Then, politicians will announce how kids “need” their fathers (just to motivate fathers to pay their child support); well, they say we are “smarter” than animals, but show me an animal that’s stressed-out because their parents aren’t / weren’t married. Really!

…

Even slaves work better when they’re happy. The rich only think society functions best when it’s unhappy, just because the base workers are; but, everyone would work better with true sexual fulfillment, and everyone would appreciate everyone more when they look at one another as “a value all by themselves.” – That’s what God is really shooting for: “unconditional love”: not really “having to” do more than just stand there, to be loved.

President Bush gets angry at al-Zawahri for being angry at Obama, because of Obama’s serious threats against al-Qaeda:

I mean, I pretty much know why the public’s so ignorant, but the President should read the entire story before making a decision. You see, you can read a book starting at page 25, and may or may not understand the entire story. Well, so much for possible peace during the next 4-8 years.

Been there many times:

Typical America: You take your car in for repair. They goof and break something else (or don’t fix what they’re supposed to correctly). Naturally they don’t tell you about it, as many times people won’t notice it and/or nice little old ladies will just live with it. But, if you notice it and want it right, and ask them to fix it, they’ll blacklist you. Especially if you have to sue them. So “dumb” is the primary root for these kinds of problems also. Maybe it’s just the way I look at idiots or sound, that makes them want to defend their pride so much. Yeah, well, I bet they don’t make the same mistake with the next customer, more than they would otherwise.

Reality:

During my watch, I’ve got a world full of nothing but idiots, all with 100% self pride, and no way to let them know about it (if I don’t want to be blacklisted).

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (movie):

I saw it the other night. Boy, Hannity would be proud of the many loyal and brave patriotic military soldiers in the film.

Terrorist’s target westerners in Mumbai, India:

Again, all this boils down to our media not reporting our atrocities and unfairnesses, causing the American public to support even more of it. George is probably telling Fox News to keep up the good work!

Cavuto “just” stated it was an “attack against democracy” as the reason: the same old cop-out. I’m telling you, nothing is ever going to improve as long as imbeciles are at the wheel. I might as well have been talking to the wall for the last three years. Now, you all try REAL HARD to listen to the following: They aren’t doing this because they don’t like how we treat ourselves. They’re doing it because of how we’re treating them.

“Educated people”: They all think too fast to be able to read something needed to be read really slow.

You see, the terrorist think all Americans look like this:

…while supporting unfairness against foreign Muslims.

Captured Mumbai terrorist talks:

I believe they simply convert them to Christianity; then they will gladly tell their sources. Praise the Lord! At first these Muslims shun baptism, so it has to be forced on them. But afterwards they start telling the day. I believe it’s called waterboarding. Thank you Lord for ordering a sacrament that helps make it a more revealing world. Thank you!

When fairness is not really on our side, we’ll have to kill each and every one of them for it to end:

I think we’ll have more incidents like what happened in Mumbai if we make even more enemies in this world, like bombing Iran, instead of just letting them have nuclear weapons and get along. But then that Israel likes treating those Arabs bad, and taking all the cop-outs for themselves. “West Texas.” That’s the ONLY solution. I’m the only person who tells the only solution; so, I should be very arrogant about it. Maybe if Israel treated their enemies real good, possibly they could all somehow share the cop-outs. Well, that’d probably just be a temporary fix; because whenever a cop-out is the rule, I don’t see how anything can work out for the long run: Unfairness will always creep in. “West Texas” is a lot easier to accomplish than is the Goldenrule. Unless the Pope could somehow place the Goldenrule first, and everything else as commentary. – And repeat it every Sunday. You see, the Goldenrule is like homosexuality: it’s not natural. The Goldenrule will drift from people’s minds very quickly. So repeating the Goldenrule every Sunday with an hour’s full of examples of what is and what’s not the Goldenrule is the only way. I’d list all the other salvation cop-outs every Sunday also. Don’t cover it (cop-outs) up: expose it, so people can see the true, dirty, evil filth of it all. I’m not dumb: I know it’s not going to happen as long as the Pope likes those material comforts (money). I tell you the truth, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Pope to enter the Kingdom of God. That means there’s a great deal of suffering a rich person has to do in Purgatory before he has the right kind of mind that allows him to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Obama is currently picking his Cabinet:

Maybe I could head the Department of Intelligence.

Why he did it:

Serial killer Jeffery Dahmer’s family had a strict moral against pornography. My guess is that Jeff learned that the one thing in life that gives him the greatest pleasure is a very, very bad thing, and is of the Devil. Realizing that murder is also very bad, he pursued finding the pleasure it holds. (Still warped though.) Of course the prison authorities let him out into the general prison population to be beaten to death; so, I don’t have any way today to find out if this could be true. You see, normal one-step thinking limitations says he should be killed, but thinking outside the box says he serves society better by being alive so people can pick at his mind to precisely find the reason, so to deter others in the future. Possibly all serial killings from the past are church caused. When you tell someone that God’s strong sexual pleasure is evil, you’re going to lose reality coping skills in people’s minds. A realization that God’s not against sex outside of marriage could fix a whole slew of (other) problems. “Experts” will never be able to figure it out, because they have all been taught that God thinks sex is evil (against everyone except those lucky enough to find a good marriage / partner), they are disallowed to even consider my theory as an option. But, how many happily married men go out serial killing? “A good woman will make you, and a bad woman will break you” in today’s society.

Valuables in the Vatican:

It’s not that valuables are evil, it’s that when there is anyone anywhere in the world who struggles for basic needs, then Jesus would sell all Vatican valuables to feed those poor people. Jesus’ church today would have a dirt floor until the point when everyone has more than a dirt floor. Otherwise, there could be someone greater than Jesus. So, it is righteous to own valuables and fluff, but only after the basic needs of everyone in the entire world is met. My new economic solution is probably the only answer, as it would bring everyone out of the rut. If it works well in the U.S., then other countries, especially third-world countries, would benefit even more. All those governments would have to do is print lots of money causing basic needs to be met, which, as a byproduct, also causes a much stronger incentive for poor people to work, as it will then be well worth the time in having a job (explained earlier). When everyone is working in an optimal and happy fashion, how could those third-world countries be poor any more? Human’s one-step thinking limitations is always going to continue to keep things the way they are, unless or until “my” stuff (only) gets disseminated. My forte is that I’m a lot smarter than the rest of you all. Apparently.

So the Catholic Church is still a long way from getting it right. But they think they’ve got it all right, don’t they? Don’t they? Insulting via the word “dumb” is the only base method to streamline improvements. “Bootlick” would just tell them they’re right, so they will like me. But that’s not ever going to improve anything. I can imagine that God will have a better way to explain all this to them during their time of Judgment. The only problem is that they can’t go back and change it then. They’ll just have to feel all the suffering they’ve caused, especially when they did it just to save face. They’ll find millions of people leaving them in the sufferings of Purgatory just so those millions can save face. That ought to rub it in pretty good. Again, they won’t realize right from wrong otherwise. Proof is their current silence about what Jesus really said about sex, marriage, and the family. Read it. I just recently slapped a bunch more evidence on my website.

And an eventual evil third-world country leader could never lower minimum wage too much because people would quit coming into work, as they are the ones with the advantage of not having to work. So, naturally, country leaders would leave the wages high enough to make people come to work, so there will be more things overall – overall for the leaders, the businesses, and (this time also for) the workers. My plan is the only way to take from the rich and give to the poor, that makes it impossible to bounce back to an eventually lower pay check for the worker. But, also, I don’t really see how the rich would even be out anything. Everyone would love my plan. No one would want to return to the dumb greed-optimized plan we have today.

One-step thinking limitations:

When I’m dead and gone, animal based one-step thinking limitations will be the only thing that will allow us to progress at all, as it’s why progress has been so slow in the past (look how long it took to employ penicillin). Technically, being able to better communicate advanced findings to our children is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animals.

Low gas prices:

Maybe George has so much clout that he caused gas prices to fall right before the election with hopes of it electing a Republican, but now realizes it will be too obvious if he lets it go back up too soon. But, I’m not complaining. Is anyone else complaining? I want it to continue, so George: Getting that dictator out of Iraq was a great and necessary thing to do. All the innocent people we had to kill to achieve that goal was justified, because of the importance of justice for the Dujail self-defense killings. You see, justice is very important, unless you’re the Kansas Supreme Court and need to do the right thing and let a police officer off for murder. About Saddam Hussein’s other mass murders? He was gassing his own people! Not at all like our mass killings during the U.S. Civil War. All them bleeding heart liberals don’t realize how the world is a much safer place now. Now that our military is currently preparing for a major WMD kind of attack on U.S. soil. Israel? Let’s defend her to the last man. Glad to see everything is perfect at the top.

I think the clever thing to do is to wait and raise gas prices shortly after Obama’s inauguration. Then the intelligent America people will figure Obama’s the cause of it going back up. Pretty smart!

http://www.answers.com/skinhead, “skinhead”:

1.	A person with a shaven head.
2.	A member of any of various groups of people, especially young people, who shave their heads and sometimes participate in white-supremacist and anti-immigrant activities.

Just in case you shave your head and don’t adhere to the above standard, then my earlier commentary doesn’t apply to you. I knew a guy once who was in his 60s and had that typical top and front baldness with short gray hair on the sides and back of the head. When he shaved all that off, he looked ten years younger.

Why people want to slow population increases:

It’s because other human beings, outside of immediate friends and family, are not worth very much and are just more in the way. I mean, who really wants more of today’s 100% self-centered units walking around the world? But, if it was an open-sex world, where everyone would desire to be with someone different (and are sexually desirous by just standing there), then other human beings, outside of immediate friends and family, would become a much more desirable value. Henceforth, we would tend to want more in this world rather than less (people). It’s like having an overabundance of nice cars, flowers, scenery, places to go, movies to watch, music to listen to, etc. – no one really wants to destroy all that. But today, my tired old carcass is worth less to you than another grain of sand at the beach.

http://www.astradome.com/marriage.htm, Marriage, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, by Barbara G. Walker:

There wasn't a Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Catholic scholars said the wedding ceremony was "imposed on" a reluctant church.

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/prophecy/23/News/Dec97.htm, The Annwn Magazine & Newsletter, Dec. 1997, Newletter # 16, Malanda, QLD, Australia, from the book “Death of an Evil God” by Dr. J Chiappalone: “On Marriage”:

During the Middle Ages there was no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one.

…

It was not until 1563 that the church declared that priestly blessing was essential. And it was not until 1753 that Lord Harwicke's Act made clerical blessing a requirement for legal marriage in England.

http://veronicafrancoescort.blogspot.com/2005/05/prehistoric-origins-of-prostitution.html, Prehistoric Origins of Prostitution:

MARRIAGE IS SANCTIONED PROSTITUTION

However, by institutionalizing prostitution under the word "marriage," our Judeo-Christian-based society itself continues to keep the whore's trade alive. As was noted earlier, all states have laws that require married men to financially support their wives, while at the same time requiring wives to provide sexual services for their husbands. This relationship form is defined by Webster, as it is by most contemporary sexologists and feminists, as "prostitution." Even in countries where polygyny (a man having multiple wives simultaneously) is practiced, we find the same established custom of "marriage-as-institutionalized prostitution," revealing that the oldest profession in the world has not been exterminated. It has merely been renamed and sanctioned under the catch-phrase "monogamous marriage."

Hear! hear!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511038/Majority-of-births-will-soon-be-out-of-wedlock.html, NEWS.telegraph, “Majority of births will soon be out of wedlock” (2-21-06):

Half of all babies will be born to unmarried mothers by 2012 if present trends continue, says new research that suggests the rapid erosion of moral and religious taboos. … The Office for National Statistics' Social Trends report, an annual snapshot of Britain, said that the figure rose to 42.3 per cent last year. In 1994, the figure was 32 per cent and in the early 1970s it was less than 10 per cent. … The figures have alarmed family campaigners, who say the collapse of marriage could have a serious impact on social structures.

I’m telling you, now is the time for my economic advice.

…

"A whole range of traditional thought about 'home', 'marriage' and 'living together' will have to be re-examined.

In a world that is quickly moving away from the marriage standard, but with a Church that still condemns sex outside of marriage, other “real” ethical problems will just get worse, until the Church rescinds its condemnation against the innocent.

I can’t stop thinking about the little animals:

If you think you’re justified to eat meat because you gain from it, then it would be the same as if someone burglarized your home, because they’d gain from it. Just remember that if anything bad ever happens to you which is to someone else’s advantage. Like if you eat meat, and are taken as ransom from a cargo ship taken by pirates, “realize” that you don’t have an ethical argument against it, as it is to their gain. You see, only people like me would have an ethical argument against it.

If all restaurants served only 100% healthy vegetarian dishes, could they make more or less varieties of dishes than just the same old beef, pork, chicken or fish? And, would it have the same spices and herbs we all like so well? I don’t know: ask Vegetarian Times.

“Dumb”: It rules until somebody really influential becomes smart.

Mr. Critical – Hammering out the hard issues:

TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):

http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/