Why do I call the "TEA Party" cancer?

The other day in one thread of discussion on Google+, I responded to a comment with this: The Tea Party is not what is causing cancer. It is cancer!

Here is why: A cancer cell starts from a regular, normal cell. Somehow along the way, a cell grows out of control and becomes cancerous. Once enough of them become that way, the cells absorbs as much nutrition as possible from its surroundings, display uncontrolled growth, invasion that intrudes upon and destroys adjacent tissues, and often metastasizes, wherein the tumor cells spread to other locations in the body ... and eventually kills the body that they are part of.

That is exactly what the tea party is: They do not care how the whole body is, what the body needs to function, or even they themselves need the body to live on. All they care about is themselves. Nobody is taking anything from them. Everything theirs belongs to them. Everything yours they will grab if they can. If you die as a result, too bad. You only have yourselves to blame: It is all because you are not as smart as they are.

Now here is a real example of that: Screw The Rich (Here’s How): "As for me, I think the government should be starved of income and be forced to spend money where it’s supposed to – defending the border, establishing a trusted currency, and protecting property rights." -- See what I am saying? Government should not be able to do anything but defend them for their property rights. You are homeless? Too bad. The government should not do anything for you.

It seems that, in tea party logic, the government is not evil only when the government can be put into their pockets.

Political Ponderings

I don't write for a living, I guess it is more of a way of venting.

Republicans are in power in much of the country these days. They continue to spout their lines about the government being the problem, etc. and continue to push their tax cuts for the wealthy, although they have no proof that their supply-side economics has ever worked.

Conceptually, I agree with them on the need of the government spending within the means. Although I cannot stop wondering, why did we not hear them saying those same things a few years ago? They say that, like a household, the country cannot spend more than it makes. I just hope that it is that simple.

I don't know about other people's households, but in mine, if we are in danger of running out of money, we would make sure that the kids are fed first. The parents may have to sacrifice a bit to do that, but there is no alternative to that. The Republicans seem to be a different breed. They don't seem to care about the kids, or the poor, for that matter. They would sacrifice everybody to guarantee that the well-off have their tax cuts. I am fine with them doing that, actually, as long as they tell what they do exactly as is. Don't pretend that they care about my job or creating jobs for those poor souls who don't have theirs.

Tell us how exactly the wealthy would create jobs? Or let's take a step back, why would they? A good free market capitalist would tell you that a private corporation exists to make profits for its share holders. So if nobody is buying a car in this country, would GM expand its production just to create more jobs because the government gives them a tax cut? My guess is no, they would not. Nobody is obligated to create jobs for us. The corporate executives are not satisfied with making only a few hundred times more than you and I do. They want more. They are only obligated to make themselves more. You and I should not forget or overlook that.

I guess the Republicans are just taking us all for fools.

I'll wait and see. November 2012 is not that far away.

It's Fun to Watch the Republicans Dance

CNN is not really well-known for playing political hardballs. Therefore it is particularly humorous to watch those republicans doing their dances around simple questions from those CNN anchors. It seems somehow anyone question the qualifications of Sarah Palin is trying to belittle women as a whole, according to the Republicans. Like when Campbell Brown asked the McCain representative to give one example of Sarah Palin's executive decision, the guy did such a tap dance that the whole conversation sounds really like a good joke. After Campbell Brown repeatedly asked the same simple question, the guy tried to pin it on the CNN anchor woman that somehow she was trying to knock the Alaska governor down.

I guess even the Republicans are not ready to take her seriously as the Vice President of the United States.

约翰·麦凯恩的副总统候选人

今天下班回家，打开电视，CNN 上报道 John McCain 的副总统人选 Sarah Palin (莎拉·佩林)。

刚才想起来写点什么，到网上“古狗”了一下“约翰·麦肯”，结果找到一堆“约翰·麦肯罗”、“约翰·麦肯兹”，到新华网上看了一眼，McCain 翻成了“麦凯恩”。

麦凯恩这招挺聪明的，显然出乎民主党这边的意料，至少这边的这些电视评论“头”们似乎没有什么有深度的话可说。显然这位阿拉斯加女州长不是一个毫无建树的“漂亮脸蛋”，从电视上有限的介绍来看，此人不是一盏省油的灯，对共和党内部的腐败份子也不手软，在阿拉斯加很有人缘。前面在 Larry King 节目上那个共和党女 talking head 拼命鼓吹说她是全国最受欢迎的州长。如果民主党那边一味轻视此人，最终一定会吃亏。

我想，麦凯恩这招势在调动共和党人的热情，至少在一定程度上是会有所成功，至少一个年轻漂亮的女副总统会让人眼睛一亮。不过，就我个人而言，此次总统选举的候选人个人并不重要，党派也在其次，最重要的未来四年我们自己的生计如何。全民医保是最关键的一件，其次能源政策，综合经济政策，伊拉克战争的走向，这与我们每个人的每日生活都息息相关。就 John McCain 数不过来的家居、一年五百万等等，他将来的政策能够有益我们这些离“五百万”相去甚远的人群吗？我想等我一年挣到五百万的时候我或许会支持 John McCain 做总统。

Larry King 之后是 AC360，安德森又出现在新奥尔良。三年前卡特琳娜飓风来袭的时候他也在那里，三年之后飓风古斯塔夫（Gustav）又“兵临城下”。三年前新奥尔良的悲惨画面而今尚历历在目，如果今年再受灾害，就是苍天瞎了眼了。如果真的噩梦又来，共和党的末日政府能够指望得上吗？或许我们都该“吃一堑长一智”吧！

I Pity John McCain

John McCain is a tragic figure of sort.

He spent decades building a reputation as a maverick of Republican. He was winning in the 2000 Republican primaries before he was tared and feathered by Bush and his cohort of scum bags. Then he has to swallow all that defeat and resentment of Bush to hug him. Does anything get more disgusting than that? All just for this one and only chance to get into the White House? What a shame.

Rethinking "Human Rights"

First thing first, the guy in this image I saw earlier today stole my idea. Now it's out there, I can only say, if some one starts a fund for the cause, I will donate 1 cent a day.

The events and media reporting in the last few weeks got me reading a lot and thinking quite a bit at the same time. Today, a bunch of friends had a dinner party. The gents naturally leaned towards discussion of politics and social issues. It makes me rethink the term Human Rights a bit.

A lot has been discussed. Human rights is often spoken as an absolute term, somewhat like the word God. Yet, like most, if not all, things of the human world, rarely do we see anything that is absolutely this or that. It could be my ignorance. But it seems worth rethinking about human rights itself. There will need to be a lot of research. I think I could get bored and simply let go of what I want to write about.

Will you vote for John McCain?

As much as I respect John McCain -- I trust him to be an honest person, I will not vote for him. Republicans may all be respectable individually. Yet the party is simply not. I have no respect nor trust in them whatsoever. I am not a Democrat, not even an independent. I am just me.

I am curious where those 19% of Obama supporters, or the 28% of Clinton supporters, who would vote for McCain live.

I guess I may donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign, just for the sake of supporting her staying in the race. It is supposed to be a competition. Is it not?

"China's True Face"

这篇文章真的是魏京生写的吗？他的英文现在挺棒的。

五年之后

今天是美军入侵伊拉克第六年的开始。CNN 在播一个片子《Shock and Awe -- 5 Years Later》，刚刚播完，Anderson Cooper 说，五年前谁也没想到这一战会打这么久，而五年之后我们又会怎样，谁也无法预料。我反感这种说法。真的没有人预料到五年之后会是今天这种样子吗？事实并非如此，至少 NPR 就报道过几个前 CIA 分析师的预测分析，其准确程度让人吃惊。

翻看我自己的笔记，2004 年 4 月 9 日有这么一段：

“ 猜测一下伊拉克的未来，不难看到最好与最坏的结局。最好的结局，就是伊拉克再出现一个强人，能够镇住暴乱的各方，然后出现的伊拉克国家或许分裂，或许保持统一，或许变成伊斯兰国家，或许真的出现民主——尽管可能性极小。而最坏的结局，恐怕伊拉克斯四分五裂，内战云起，而伊斯兰极端份子乘虚而入，建立基地，制造事端。”

今天看伊拉克的局势，似乎介于我估计的最好与最坏之间，但是偏坏的一端更多。美军在伊拉克的数量尚足够维持大的局面。但是今年总统大选民主党胜出的机会极大，这样明年开始美军从伊拉克开始减防势在必行，如果 Obama 当选，撤军的速度大概会更快一些。这样一来，伊拉克目前的政府能否控制局面，看好的人大概不多。

文明社会向往民主是必然的，然而，民主制度本身是脆弱的，它必须有强大的人文力量和武装力量的支持，否则，民主不见得比强权更能给一般百姓带来好处。从伊拉克的现状看，民主的力量似乎不足以对抗宗族之间的仇杀，甚至少数人的权利欲望。就是美国，当年如果没有军队的保护，九个小石城的黑人学生要上学都没有可能。

总统选举

今年是美国大选年，从去年忘了几月份开始，竞选活动就开始热闹起来了。随着各州两党候选人初选活动的开始，全国上下就不亦乐乎起来。当然主要是各大媒体，大家都在绞尽脑汁地抓住每一点小小的事情拼命大作文章，一会儿谁要哭了，一会儿谁的声音哑了。本来我还一直看 CNN 的新闻，现在都有些烦了。

共和党的候选人不管是谁，我是不会投他们的票的。John McCain 人是个正直的人，但是他终究还是个共和党人，一旦上台必然还是执行共和党人的政策，尤其是在伊拉克战争这个主题上，他的立场我无法接受。美国在伊拉克是最终要失败的，早认识到这一点，早做打算，或许还可以早一日从泥潭里脱身。如果还一味要追逐“胜利”的幻影，最终只有落得白白丧失更多的人命和钱财。共和党只知道追逐一党私利，基本到了着魔的程度，与中国共产党、甚至台湾的民进党已经没有多少区别了，令人不耐。

民主党也有大堆的毛病，但毕竟还有一些对于社会进步的追求。民主制度本来就是这样，所求的不是完美，而是“两害相权取其轻”。而且，追求完美的结局往往是整个社会堕入暴力的怪圈，这似乎是人类本性，无从逃避。当初基督教十字军东征是这样，对于共产主义的追逐是这样，穆斯林极端分子排斥“异教徒”是这样，而现在布希所谓的全球反暴力也是这样。穆斯林极端分子和基督教极端分子的暴力，都一样是暴力，以暴易暴，其结局历史已经演出过许多遍了。

我早想过，什么时候美国选出一位无神论者做总统，也许这个世界就有些希望了。就目前看，这个希望尚且渺茫。