Lovebugs
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
A poem from Woody Harrelson. Like him or not, you gotta admit he's an interesting fella, check out his website sometime:
http://www.voiceyourself.com/index.php
Thoughts from Within
by Woody Harrelson
I sometimes feel like an alien creature
for which there is no earthly explanation
Sure I have human form
walking erect and opposing digits,
but my mind is upside down.
I feel like a run-on sentence
in a punctuation crazy world.
and I see the world around me
like a mad collective dream...
Morality is legislated
prisons over-populated
religion is incorporated
the profit-motive has permeated all activity
we pay our government to let us park on the street
And war is the biggest money-maker of all
we all know missile envy only comes from being small.
Politicians and prostitutes
are comfortable together
I wonder if they talk about the strange change in the weather...
Do you dare to feel responsible for every dollar you lay down
are you going to make the rich man richer
or are you going to stand your ground
You say you want a revolution
a communal evolution
to be a part of the solution
maybe I'll be seeing you around.
======
Here's hoping Woody wins an Oscar for his role in A Prairie Home Companion.
28 comments:
That's rather hard on the prostitutes.
HA!
With apologies, then, to all the prostitutes whose names I have sullied by association...
"Morality is legislated"
Yep, we have laws. All laws are morality legislated. Beats Anarchy.
"And war is the biggest money-maker of all"
That makes no sense to me. Billions go down the drain, and it is the biggest money-maker of all?
See Halliburton, Raytheon and other military suppliers. You know what brought us, at least partially, out of the Depression, don't you? All the spending of WWII.
War has always been a huge money maker for capitalists.
Not at all for those affected by the war directly - the soldiers and the civilian bystanders - but for the Masters of War, this is beyond doubt.
Simple supply and demand. War is the ultimate consumer and demands increased production in lives and treasure. Mind you, endless war is unsustainable at high levels of demand.
War makes money, but only for some. There are 2 economic chapters in the book Teaching Peace, ed. J. Denny Weaver and Gerald Biesecker-Mast that show that war and militarism are disastrous for economies overall. (I co-wrote the opening chapter of that book, "Defining Violence and Nonviolence," but it's a good book anyway.)
With every comment, you liberal shmucks show your irrelevance.
Daddio, if you want to visit and disagree, fine. If you're going to keep it to the 4th grade name-calling level, I'll ask you kindly to go away.
IF (and it's a BIG "if," I'm the first to admit)Democrats can find the money to match deep GOP pockets for these last weeks of campaigning, and IF they can match the Get Out the Vote machine of the GOP, then Daddio, it's very possible that it's the Right who will soon be irrelevant. Several polls show that Democrats may be able not only to retake the House, but possibly even pickup as many as 41 seats--which would give a governing majority able to override vetos. There is also the bare chance (but much greater than just a month ago) to retake the Senate.
Now, none of this may happen. An October surprise may be sprung. The election may be stolen again with electronic machines or other machinations. Even without such illegalities, Tom Delay helped set in place very gerrymandered districts that make only a few seats truly competitive. The GOP has many structural advantages. So, it is barely possible that Karl Rove is right and the Dems only get 8-10 seats in the House (short of the 15 needed for House control).
But IF this "perfect storm" breaks for the Dems the way that '94 did for the GOP, the far Right will be a broken force. Not the GOP. It will survive, but it'll have to be reformed so that it once again becomes the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Rockefeller, Harold Stassen, and Mark Hatfield. THAT will be a GOP worth working with in a bi-partisan manner.
It's long time for the far-right descendants of the John Birch Society and of the McCarthy era to crawl back under their rock. It's time to recover an America that believes in social justice for all (racial, economic, gender, sexual orientation), care for the planet, peace, and human rights. That recovery will take more than an election, but stage one begins on Nov. 7th. Then, it could well be Bush, Cheney, and their worshipers are irrelevant.
If the Democrats take control and same sex marriage is legalized, abortions continue at high rate and morality falls into a deeper crevice, I would not be surprised to see judgement come from on High and disasters, disease and calamities until humanity runs to the mountains and caves to hide.
"...morality falls into a deeper crevice..."
Deeper than it is, already?
Why do you think that may be the case with Dems in charge? What could they possibly do worse than the Republicans?
The Dems slogan this year:
Vote Democrat. We Couldn't Possibly Do Worse.
I admit the Republicans have done little to reverse the moral slide, but look at what the Democrats stand FOR.
Same sex marriage (not God's plan), abortion on demand (shedding of the most innocent blood), removing God's laws - 10 Commandments from public places. There is a sample for you Dan.
But I reject your position that those examples are necessarily any more ungodly than the Republicans' position.
After all, the Republicans are pro-capitalism (hardly biblical), pro-big business (hardly Christian), they have supported multiple military actions that are war crimes - contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and they've tended to support the posting of Graven Images (which thou shalt not worship), and have opposed family values (people choosing marriage over not, keeping people from adopting)!
Both parties are made up of humans and, as such, have fallen positions. It is not credible to suppose that the Dems are worse than the Republicans in this regard. From where THIS Christian stands, the Dems are less awful than the Republicans.
Dan, The Old Testament is still as valid a part of the Bible as it ever was. Go back and read it and see what kind of sins got Holy anger roused and it was always dealt with. Wars were used a lot of times to bring people back to God. We have thumbed our noses at the righteousness and holiness of our God and have received His mercy for so long, but it may not continue.
"Go back and read it and see what kind of sins got Holy anger roused"
I HAVE read the OT and love it, Mom2. And you know what the two top activities that got nations in trouble with God in the OT?
1. Oppression of the poor and marginalized
2. Depending upon a military, wealth or other gods besides God
(I haven't actually researched that, but I'd be willing to bet that's the top two trouble-makers).
And so, as the OT verifies, the Republicans are often doing a worse job in these two categories than the Dems.
So, listen to the OT, folk: Vote Dems!
woody is wise. i just wish he hadn't done natural born killers. Good, but very disturbing, flick.
to those who say they adhere to the OT: go roast a ram. :)
I agree both the Republicans and the Democrats are pretty foul smelling. But the litmus test for all good Democratic politicians is killing babies.
And that was the sin of Manasseh which brought down Israel.
Larry, Dems no more want to kill babies through abortion than Republicans want to do so through war.
Demonization is a diabolical tool.
Dan, It sounds like you would compare innocent little unborn babies to terrorists, then.
Dan, the litmus test for all Supreme Court justices is whether or not they will overturn Roe vs Wade.
This is not demonization, but rather, it is a fact.
I'm a little tired and impatient and this is my blog, so forgive me if I say I don't know WHAT the hell either of you are talking about!
Okay, I've had a moment to relax.
Mom2, who said anything about comparing babies to terrorists? The answer? No one.
This is exactly the sort of demonization I was pointing out to Larry. If you imply that your "enemy" thinks terrorists' lives are worth more than sweet babies, and then your "enemy" must be pretty dispicable. Monstrous, in fact!
If on the other hand, you both are concerned about sweet babies - born and unborn - well, then you're both concerned about the same thing and maybe your enemy isn't as dangerous as you'd like him to be.
Let's dispense with the demonization and mischaracterizations.
Larry, you bring up a concern for many Right-wingers, who'd like to put a litmus test on Justices. I don't think that's a good idea.
Further, Dems don't want to kill babies, despite what you tried to imply.
Thou shalt not make mischaracterizations of others' views (ie, bear false witness).
Larry, Dems no more want to kill babies through abortion than Republicans want to do so through war.
Dan, abortion IS about killing babies.
War IS not. Do babies start wars? Yet you make the comparison. You get angry and then turn your anger around to start accusing anyone that disagrees with you. I guess you want me to believe that pregnant women or their unborn babies were the ones flying airplanes into the buildings in N.Y. killing almost 3,000 people because in your apparent view - it wasn't terrorists.
Dan, the litmus test for all Supreme Court justices is whether or not they will overturn Roe vs Wade.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding this, let me interpret it as I see it. Democrats vote against judges that are considered conservative and do not support abortion. Every hearing for a prospective judge centers around whether they will protect the women's right to choose (abortion) and if the Democrats fear they will not protect abortion, then they go about declaring them unfit to serve as a judge and either will not let them be confirmed or even brought up for a vote. Thus, if Democrats get control of all branches of government, abortion will be protected and homosexual marriages will probably become the law of the land. You take abortion and homosexuality up with God and argue with him like you do on all the sites I have seen you on. If you are so sure they are fine with Him, ask Him to show you in a defining way.
(Sigh!) LOL!
"Daddio, if you want to visit and disagree, fine. If you're going to keep it to the 4th grade name-calling level, I'll ask you kindly to go away."
In other words--if you want to call people names, do it subtly and come in through the back door. Don't be honest and direct. Use deciet. Be very careful to try and convince others that you don't mean a thing by it.
You should explain your tactics fully, Dan. You have lots of experience and a good way with words. Be more thorough in your instruction.
There's a sea of potential decievers for you to train.
I want some of what Dad's smoking.
Post a Comment