thoughtprivacyandliberty.com

There are two kinds of politics in the United States today:

One that is self-absorbed, self-protective, defensive and insecure/paranoid. This type of politics protects the status quo and those who already enjoy comfort and privileges.

The other type of politics is concerned with problem-solving in order to have a more equitable, fair and just society where we are all citizens with the same rights and we all strive to do the right things, take care of each other, and improve life for everyone, not just the privileged.

These are two sets of opposing politics. It’s not really possible to straddle the fence and/or be neutral or “centrist” with these two distinct types of politics. When people often talk about the two political parties or about the left or the right, liberal or conservative, they often say that there’s no difference, that “both parties do it.”

That is not true when it comes to the two types of politics I have described here. One is the politics of selfishness, indifference and heartlessness. The other is practical and believes in working for what is best for the most people. It’s utilitarian.

I’m not trying to be provocative. I’m just asking people to think about it for themselves. Don’t answer this question to anyone but yourself. Which of these two political ideologies best fits you?

I believe the type of politics that has had the bigger influence in United States for a long time has been the selfish type of politics that serves the status quo and the wealthy. As a result this country does not have justice for all or full equality of all citizens. But it does have a grotesquely skewed economy that favors the rich and punishes the middle and lower classes. The current politics have allowed for the dissolution of the separation of church and state and for the church(es) to insert themselves directly into politics and assert their agendas, which are not religious at all but serve as political dogma and tyranny which goes against what the authors of the Constitution intended and also go against the teachings of Jesus and Buddha and all the teachings of true religions.

So far, utilitarian politics, the politics that do the most to help the most people, have only had limited success in the democracy of the United States and have always been branded as being socialist or communist or other pejoratives, even if those labels are not correct and confuse people with emotion and distortion. But the thing that is true about utilitarian governance that cannot be gaslighted and will always remain true is that when the government works honestly and sincerely for the people to improve and lift up the lives of all citizens and to do what is best and right for the most people most of the time, it stands up to and is superior to all the gaslighting.

The United States is a young democracy. It is searching its soul and trying to figure out which type of politics it wants to accept and embrace. So far, it has built quite a campaign on the successful elements of good governance that it has been able to accomplish despite all of the forces that have always arrayed themselves against it doing so. But the serious question that remains unsettled is whether or not the United States will finally take steps to strengthen itself and create a more perfect union and correct the imperfections that keep it from doing so? Or not? That is what will be interesting to see; which direction the country will take.

I don’t hate homeless people. I hate homelessness. Homeless people do not simply have no home. Most of them don’t really have anything at all except their lives and the clothes they are wearing and the few possessions they carry around with them. Contrary to what some people say, everyone, all the people in all the countries all around the world, should have a place of shelter that provides them safety, security, and some comfort. The homeless people everywhere all around the world are people, human beings, just like all of the rest of us who are fortunate enough to have shelter. And they deserve our help in finding the safe shelter that they do not have if we as individual people take any part in a collective responsibility for the whole community of human beings. If we have any belief in or feel any responsibility and connection in humanity as a whole. As citizens, that is the only moral response to homelessness that we can have to the homeless. Help is needed. Help is the solution. The beginning of the end of the problem of homelessness is to stop ignoring and turning away from the problem.

Homelessness has many causes. All of those causes should be identified, defined, and described in order for us to fully understand them. This information should be disseminated as a matter of universal education. If human society and a global community are naturally and normally evolving, a full understanding of homelessness and all of its causes is needed in order to eliminate it as the universal and multidimensional social problem and nuisance and general threat to health and public safety, and the failure of society in general to care for the entire body, that it is, once and for all.

Does humanity solve its problems? Does it have such a responsibility or obligation? If humanity is ever going to solve the complex set of problems that create homelessness, which it could do if it has the political will to do so, it will be necessary to solve all of the problems that coalesce to create it. That means addressing problems of inequalities of education, poverty, distribution, services and public assistance as well as substance abuse and mental health care.

Some of the most significant deficiencies and defects of capitalism are that it precludes educational and economic opportunities and shuts so many people out of the economic well being and security that is so important to a sense of security. (It will certainly not be a best seller, but the examination and writing of the history of the economy in the last one hundred years that saw the explosive growth of income inequality when the most opportune class became ever more opulently wealthy, and the most impoverished more and more destitute, has yet to be adequately written and thus recorded.) It also turns the economy in general into more of a lottery or casino than a stable basis upon which resources can be better managed for the benefit of all of society and not just the most fortunate or the most conniving and ruthless and luckiest investors and insiders. The most unfortunate and deprived in the economy are those who find themselves homeless. Capitalism has been moving along a path parallel to and along the exact same direction and trajectory as Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest in its most cynical political application. This is probably the most significant reason and important cause of the class and economic and social inequalities that have only been exacerbated and made worse by corporate media, politics, and by power of vested interests that oppose equality and justice in general and have caused so many people to fall into poverty and homelessness. As a system of economics, capitalism has contributed greatly to the problem of homelessness.

However, the problem of homelessness isn’t only a problem of economics. It is a problem of failures and victimization, whether they are external or self-inflicted, that are experienced by the homeless themselves. When poor people are victims of bad public policy, substandard education and training, maltreatment, authoritative suppression and oppression, bad laws and regulations, political disenfranchisement, persecution and discrimination of all kinds, injustice and illegal and immoral actions that are imposed on them, they cannot be blamed for their misfortunes. When judgement is made against the poor, it is most likely to be because they did not utilize or take advantage of things that they could control to make their lives better and give them more stability. Bad decisions, inadequate preparation and training, submission and resignation, and being victimized have all been factors that have contributed to a mind set that may be part of homelessness, a type of mentality of homelessness. It is not, however, constructive or useful to assign blame or guilt or to make judgements about people when they have experienced the hardships of poverty and/or homelessness whether they are a result of external or imposed conditions. Homelessness should ideally be a problem that is comprehensively understood and solved from all angles, from the public and by the homeless themselves. The responsibility, if there is one, to respond to and do something to end homelessness will have to be an endeavor that is both public and individual. It will also have to involve the homeless themselves, in their own understanding of their own part in being homeless and in self-care (which they will need to do for themselves or which they may need to be taught) in order to do the work that only they can do for themselves, to the best of their abilities, to improve their own lives for themselves and to not rely exclusively and passively on everything being done for them and to them.

There needs to be a discussion of rights and responsibilities around homelessness. Do the homeless have a right to set up camp on private or public properties that they do not own without asking for permission to do so? If the homeless are refused access to a place for shelter by its owners or managers, what alternatives should a community consider providing so that they can find shelter elsewhere? Should low or no cost housing be established and provided by the public at public expense “to get people off the streets”? How much and in what way should the public that spends public money to provide affordable low or no cost housing to the homeless be allowed to help the homeless and set rules and regulations or create opportunities for the homeless to be part of the communities where they live? Should there be rules and regulations and conditions attached to public housing? Since the problem of homelessness is a problem of not owning shelter or the resources needed to secure shelter, how can homeless people be helped to help themselves while also being encouraged to participate as members of the community at large?

For humanitarian and public health reasons, communities with homeless populations need to address the issues that create the problem of homelessness and solve them to help the homeless and to help themselves and their communities as a whole.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court recently legalized discrimination against LGBTQI individuals by businesses on the basis of the first amendment right of free speech. In this case, what that means is the Supreme Court has expanded the legal definition of free speech to allow for discrimination based on “religious” belief.

I did not buy the argument that a corporation has the same protections and rights (but not the responsibilities) of an individual that the first amendment gives to individual humans when the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in 2010. That case gave the human right of free speech (for political purposes) to corporations and the über wealthy. And I do not buy the rationale that legalizes discrimination on the basis of “religious” beliefs to condone and allow for discrimination. I put “religious” in quotes because it is not clear to me how a belief that discrimination is moral or justifiable is religious.

Is the conservative majority of the Supreme Court abusing the meaning and intent of the first amendment by expanding the definition and scope of the amendment and in so doing trampling on the rights of the majority of people? Do these cases legitimize and legalize abuses such as creating a pay-to-play, highest bidder wins democracy in Citizens United, and discrimination on 303 Creative? Doesn’t allowing discrimination against any one group of people open up the possibility of similarly discriminating against any other groups or individuals? What is to stop that from happening?

Is the Supreme Court a religious arbiter? Is the Supreme Court a moral authority? Is the Supreme Court under any obligation to serve the needs and guarantee the rights of all the people, or just those it picks and chooses to serve and assist and exclude all others?

The six conservative Supreme Court justices have varying loyalties and connections to personal beliefs and large scale churchly (notice I did not say religious) influences. They are making decisions based on their own personal connections and loyalties and this is causing direct negative impacts and consequences for the entire citizenry of the country. Is this the impartial and ethical Supreme Court that was envisioned by the writers of the Constitution? Is this Supreme Court defending, protecting and supporting the constitution’s mandate to keep church and state separate?

Now that the Supreme Court has legalized discrimination against LGBTQI people, LGBTQI individuals will have to think about where they spend their money and do their business. Likewise, non LGBTQI people who go into businesses that discriminate will face the possibility of legalized discrimination against them if the business owner suspects them to be objectionably different and/or religiously offensive. The door of discrimination is open. And by that I mean it is fully open.

Why did the Supreme Court establish a legitimacy for discrimination that deliberately makes society more hostile and less civil? That is what it has done by legalizing discrimination in the case of 303 Creative.

Congress could end discrimination by passing the Equality Act.

CHOICES:

miserable or joyful 
scared or secure
sad or happy 
worried or calm
trapped or free 
pressured or relaxed 
closed or open
desperate or composed
rigid or fluid
fixed or flexible
uncompromising or permissive 
follower or independent
weak or strong
vacant or thoughtful
uninformed or knowledgeable 
paranoid or lucid
reactionary or measured
indecent or decent
cold or compassionate
dead or passionate
calculating or giving
ignorant or thinking
judgmental or accepting
isolationist or humanitarian
racist or impartial
them or me
them or us 
them or all
confined or communal
blocked or relieved
unapproachable or embracing
mute or outspoken
loud or gentle
belligerent or still 
confrontational or reasonable
harsh or fair
extreme or balanced
obedient or questioning
submissive or equal
selfish or generous
superstitious or real
regimented or self-possessed

There are always at least two approaches to interacting with other people. We are constantly making choices. 

There is a lot of discord in the world. Not in nature or among other animals, but between people. 

We can prove to ourselves that we are superior beings as we like to think of ourselves. Or we can keep getting it wrong. 

As we approach the midterm elections and then the general election in 2024 here are some things to keep in mind. But keep in mind that THIS IS ONLY A VERY PARTIAL LIST OF REPUBLICAN PARTYWIDE LIES:

Trickle down economics is good for the economy.

Tax breaks for the top 10 to 20% of (the richest) Americans and corporations should be made permanent.

Big governmental spending is always bad (except when republicans are doing it or when its for what Republicans want).

Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting the government.

What republicans, and most democrats are NOT saying is that the Social Security and Medicare funding problem could be easily and permanently solved by getting rid of the cap on the upper limit of income taxed for them.

Abortion should be banned. Completely. And those aiding and abetting abortion should be prosecuted.

Labor Unions are bad. Organized labor is a threat.

Subsidies to the large, multi-billion dollar a year in pure profit corporations are good and should remain unchanged.

The deficit needs to be slashed.

I do not disagree with this. We should not have a deficit that continues to grow. But republicans always seem to make the deficit much larger through bad management or wrong spending policy priorities and never really do anything to reduce it when they are in power. It’s only the democrats who consistently really seem to ever achieve deficit reduction.

I will stop with these few (of many many more) Republican lies to the American people.

We have to choose our representation. The question is do you want your representatives to represent you or to represent themselves and other interests? That is up to you in how you vote.

Ukraine has been coveted, contested, fought over, and controlled, by outside empires for well over a millennium. As a place of importance it has existed since before the Russian empire came into being.

Among the outside empires that have had some interest in having control of Ukraine or have occupied Ukraine are: the Vikings, the Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles, Imperial Russia, the Ottoman Empire the Austro-Hungarian dynasty, Cossacks, Swedes, French, Austrians, Germans, Romanians and Czechoslovakians.

Joseph Stalin, who led the Soviet States from 1924 until his death in 1953, paid particular attention to Ukraine and was responsible for the death of more than seven million Ukrainians including more than a million Jews. Relations between Russia and Ukraine from after the death of Stalin up until the time of the Orange Revolution in 2004 were not bloody and imperialistic until Putin started his full scale war on Ukraine in 2022.

There has been a long history of Ukraine being tossed back and forth between large, aggressive and powerful forces that wanted it for themselves. But the fact is that Ukraine has a population of 44.13 million (2020). Even though they are a slavic people, Ukrainians speak Ukrainian and have a culture and traditions that set them apart from Russia and other slavic nations. Putin can dismiss Ukrainians and claim that there is no such thing as Ukrainian and that the are really just Russians and are not a distinct branch of the slavic tree as he does. But that doesn’t make it true.

Ukrainians have been independent of Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. They are a sovereign nation. They have their own distinctive slavic culture and language. They are not Russian or Russians. They are Ukrainian.

Collectively, Ukrainians want to ally and align with Europe and the rest of the world. This does not exclude Russia. But they do not want the same pre-independence relationship that they had with Russia before the fall of the Soviet Union. They do not consider themselves to be a vassal state to Russia. So, if Russia wants to live peaceably with Ukraine and the rest of its neighbors and drop its imperialistic drives which are the fantasy of Putin and his close circle, there could be peace and both Ukraine and Russia could join the rest of the world and become part of the world community.

I am attaching a link to a very good, very brief synopsis of the history of the conflict that has been a presence in Ukraine for well over a millennium. It’s a quick, very condensed read that outlines the major shifts that have been the history of Ukraine for the last one thousand plus years. The last thing I will say is that Ukraine, I believe, just wants to be free to live independently, make its own laws, be responsible for taking care of itself, without outside interference. That is all most nations want for themselves. Ukraine is no exception to this.

Ukraine Has Seen Centuries of Conflict – HISTORYhttps://www.history.com › ukraine-timeline-invasions

PS. If this link doesn’t open to the article, you can copy and paste it to access the link to click into the article.

I have a few questions for you.

What do you need? How much of it do you need? Could you be happy living with less? Do you commute? On average how many times a day do you drive a car? For how many miles? Do you ever take a bus instead of driving? Do you ever walk more than a few steps? Do you ever do without something that you want? Do you want things that other people have for no reason other than other people have those things? Do you have things that you don’t need or use? Do you have things that you use once (or never) and then throw away? Do you use fossil fuel produced energy every day to heat your water, heat and cool your home? Do you spend a significant, (5% of your income or more) amount of your income on paying for gas, electricity, oil, etc.? How often do you buy things that are not essential? Do you waste water, electricity, gas, etc.? Have you ever tried to live with less? Have you ever tried to live more simply? Do you ever consider using less energy? What do you think about making sacrifices to achieve any kind of a goal? Is that something that you have ever done or would ever consider doing? Does the thought of living more simply, with less terrify you and leave you feeling dazed and confused?

Will we be able to survive climate change? It will not be a matter of simply adapting to more severe weather extremes. It will mean living on a planet that may become too hot for humans to survive. But it will mean that sooner or later we will have to make lifestyle changes and it will have to be a complete paradigm shift. It can’t be voluntary and piecemeal or come too late. Eventually we will have to live with less. Eventually we will have to live more simply. Does that terrify you?

Brazil is having an interesting presidential election.

There were 11 candidates running in the general election. Brazil has a kind of ranked choice system for voting. Brazil, as a country, allows for a wider expression of politics than a system that is a much more limited and restricted in terms of representation and expression of political thought and ideology such as we have here in the United States where two political parties, republican and democratic, dominate the electoral process and impose their rules on the electoral process of the states and the country as a whole. Another major difference between Brazil’s and the US’s electoral systems is that Brazil has no such thing as an electoral college so the vote is the vote. It’s the voice of the people. The people of Brazil elect their president, not a group of 538 partisan political operatives, the electoral college, after the popular vote has taken place. In Brazil, the eligible voters of the 213 million plus people get to elect their president. The Brazilian vote is not fraught with all of the ways that an election can turn into a constitutional crisis because of the electoral college, such as fake electors, disrupting or preventing certification, and using the electoral college to ensure minority rule over majority rule and obliterating the importance of the popular vote by overriding it.

None of the 11 candidates running in the presidential election received 50% or more of the vote which would have meant that the winner won the election outright. So, the top two vote getters will now go on to a runoff election on October 30.

The top two candidates are a liberal former union leader and former president of Brazil, and a fascist far right megalomaniac similar in temperament and politics to Trump. The two candidates could not be more different from one another.

The former president was a union leader and a liberal who has had legal problems related to corruption. His legacy as president is that he had to deal with corruption scandals, but also because he did a lot of good for the country and pulled millions of Brazilians out of poverty with his programs.

The incumbent, a fascist, who is known for his inflammatory and provocative targeting of women and the LGBTQ community and for his desire to eliminate gun control laws and his promotion of gun violence, has also been responsible for policies that open up the Amazon for vast deforestation and violence against indigenous peoples of the Amazon basin.

On October 30, I am hoping that Brazil will elect the man who made the lives of so many Brazilians more secure with food security and anti-poverty measures, and that they will retire the current president who is a man who has inflamed the country with his violent and divisive rhetoric and done a great deal of harm to the global climate and devastated the vast precious resources of the Amazon.

Brazil deserves a president who will work for the people. I hope that they can forgive his sins of corruption and look past them, vote for him, and let him get back to work for the people of Brazil.

Libertarians and libertarianism are not an alternative political party or a different ideology or political philosophy.

They are anti-government, any and all government, because they are against any and all laws and regulations that stand in the way of their bottom line. Libertarians are a disgruntled and angry group of selfish, loathsome, economic opportunists. The only thing they value is money, their money. If you are a regular person who thinks that libertarianism is a valid alternative form of governance and you do not have exactly the same goal of tearing down the government or you do not follow lockstep in their behaviors and beliefs, you can never actually be a real member of that dystopian group. At best, you would only ever be a peripheral inconsequential number.

Libertarians and libertarianism are not an alternative to political parties or ideology. If they are anything, they are anarchists. If you think anarchy is good, libertarianism might really be your thing.

The Ukrainians who are fighting the war would disagree with your opinion that it is a proxy war of the United States. It’s a war of aggression that Russia started and it was unprovoked. Putin started this war because he had a grudge that he chose not to ignore and he foolishly thinks he can subdue an entire slavic country that has a clear desire to be independent and to throw off the corruption of the old regime. This war did not have to happen. But it did because Putin has a swollen and bruised ego and he doesn’t give a shit about the loss of any life, whether it’s Russian soldiers or Ukrainians. Putin doesn’t care. The loss of life in this war is ALL on Putin. He violated the sovereignty and territory of Ukraine. Whatever consequences result from this war, they are ALL on Putin.

Украинцы, которые воюют, не согласятся с вашим мнением, что это опосредованная война США. Это агрессивная война, которую начала Россия, и она не была спровоцирована. Путин начал эту войну, потому что у него была обида, которую он решил не игнорировать, и он глупо думает, что может подчинить себе всю славянскую страну, у которой есть явное желание быть независимой и избавиться от коррупции старого режима. Эта война не должна была произойти. Но это произошло потому, что у Путина раздутое и уязвленное эго, и ему плевать на гибель людей, будь то российские солдаты или украинцы. Путину все равно. Жертвы этой войны ВЕСЬ на Путине. Он нарушил суверенитет и территорию Украины. К каким бы последствиям не привела эта война, ВСЕ они на Путине.