DADvocate

Anyone who looks at the masthead of my blog can see one of my favorite quotes is: "Better starve free than be a fat slave." - Aesop

With their promises of universal health care, "jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs", saving the climate (as if humans can control everything), ad infinitum, ad nauseum, the Democrats are working at a frenzied pace to create fat slaves. We already have the fattest poor people in history. Largely, these same poor people are the most dependent on the government.

Which is fine as long as they vote Democrat as often as possible. Indeed, Democrats have their own federally funded organization, ACORN, to help ensure the poor slaves vote for them.

Using an onslaught of legislation, the Democrats aim to create a government in which greater numbers of citizens are forced into dependency on the government. People who work hard to earn enough money to remain independent will be punished by being forced to support the others.

An unfortunate leap Americans often make when thinking of slavery is to look only at American slavery. During ancient Roman and Greek times, slaves were often treated quite well and lived in relative luxury, but they were still slaves. The great irony of Aesop's quote is that he, himself, was a slave.

Many will want to pick apart my claims and analyze the details to "prove" the Democrats aren't working towards enslavement. But, analysis is often a circular process that proves nothing and neither begins nor ends. Consider this:

The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: "Truth is a pathless land." Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Knowing that laws are easier to pass than repeal, the Democrats hope to establish laws that greatly increase the power of government over the individual. Unfortunately, too many find Independence and self-reliance too frightening and gladly enter into enslavement, especially when they think they're getting something for nothing.

My son tells me I need to give some examples. I feel if you've been observing the news, you don't need examples. But here are some:

• The EPA suppressing a report contradicting popular global warming theory
• In the mean time, Obama wants to force us to us only light bulbs approved by him in order to fight global warming
• Pelosi and Reid intend to hide the contents of the health care bill as long as possible
• Self-appointed left-wing vigilantes are attacking free speech. A big part of their meme is that right wing speech is terrorism.
• The speaker of the California assembly call right wing radio terrorism. Must be part of their talking points.
• Simply put, every significant piece of legislation passed by the Democrat Congress and supported by Obama gives the federal government more control over individuals and businesses.

We will see a society with a permanent underclass, which we pretty much already have, brainwashed into believing the government is their only hope, in particular a Democrat run government. Democrats will make sure there is plenty of free or cheap housing, food stamps, etc. Democrats will also make sure that this underclass continues to be an underclass falsely believing the Democrats are their only hope.

We will see a middle class and upper class that carries the burdens of society. (This we already have, also. It will just become more pronounced.) As I said above, they will pay a heavy penalty in taxes for being independent and self-reliant. Government will control them through threat of imprisonment as they have the most to lose. Like Joe the Plumber, if you raise a stink you will be the subject of investigations and more.

And we will have an ever more powerful ruling class. A ruling class that thinks they're royalty rather than public servants. A ruling class that thinks they're royalty rather than public servants. A ruling class that thinks they're royalty rather than public servants. I could go on and on here, but if you don't get the point by now, you're too blind to see.

Usually when going on vacation, I access the USPS website for to have my mail held until I return. Last week I forgot to do this but figured I could simply go to a post office at my destination and they could get it done for me.

While my son was at football camp at Notre Dame, I found the post office in Granger, Michigan. I entered the line for the single person working the window. Standing there, I picked up a brochure on USPS services and found a phone number I could call to have my mail held. I dialed the number on my cell phone.

A computer voice answered and began giving options and wanted a voice response from me, no option to push buttons rather than speak. I successfully navigated the half dozen or so levels I need to get through to give my name and address to hold my mail. The computer then asked me what date to start holding the mail. Realizing I didn't know the exact date and not seeing a calendar posted any where, I asked someone today's date.

The computer thought I said "October" and began rattling off about how it couldn't schedule that far in advance and then hung up on me. (Or, maybe, voice recognition systems in Michigan don't understand Southern accents.)

By that time I was at the front of the line. I told the lady what I wanted to do and she gave me a form to fill out. After filling out the form, I handed it to her. She said she would mail it to my local post office and they would hold my mail. I asked her how long it would take for the form to reach my post office. Three days.

I had assumed in the information age that all post offices would be linked to a central network which would allow them to communicate rapidly with any other post office. I can do this from home on the Internet, so why not the USPS?

I told here three days would be too long. She suggested I get on the Internet and submit the hold request that way. I told her I didn't have a laptop computer. She suggested I use the one in the hotel lobby. I told her I was staying at a campground. She suggested I find a library and use a computer there. I called my ex-wife, who was feeding and watering my dog while I was gone, and asked her to pick up my mail each day. She did.

All you who want the Federal government to control more and more of your lives, businesses, health care, etc remember: You can depend on your ex-wife or ex-husband more than you can the government. (Also, the USPS is one of the few, maybe only, federal agency the is self supporting.)

Last week my 16 year old son attended football camps at Notre Dame and the University of Tennessee. (Which is also why I haven't blogged recently.) The differences in the quality of the two camps stood out clearly from the start of each camp.

At ND registration started 5 minutes early. People let us in at a controlled rate and made sure we knew exactly which table to go to. At each table we completed only one task which kept the process moving quickly and smoothly. Once we began registering, we were finished in 10-15 minutes. We then went and checked my son into his dorm which also was quick and painless. People were stationed at every intersection, making sure we knew where to go.

UT's registration process moved much more slowly. At times we waited 10-15 minutes at one table. Part way through we had to go check into the dorm which was half way across campus. Given the number of one way streets and complexity of UT's campus, had I not been an alumni, finding the dorm would have been difficult. Too few clerks at the dorm slowed us once again. Checking in the dorm took at least a 30-45 minutes while at ND it had taken 5-10 minutes from leaving the registration site to being fully checked into his dorm room.

Returning, as directed, to the registration site at UT, completing registration included my son being measured and weighed, having his picture taken with and without his shirt on, plus him running a 40 yard dash and doing the shuttle run. His times were slow as he was stiff and sore from the ND camp which had only finished the day before.

Taking pictures of kids with no shirts, and holding a white board with their height and weight at UT, was too weird for me. At UT's introductory meeting, they claimed the camp wasn't a "recruiting camp." If so, why did they take height, weight, pictures with no shirt (the kids never received a copy of either picture taken of them), and later divide the groups into high school seniors and others? Indeed, the camp appeared to be nothing but a camp to assess potential talent.

The registration processes proved to be signs of things to come. Notre Dame's camp, 4 days/3 nights, ran like clock work. All activities began and ended as scheduled even when, one evening, rain forced activities inside. Although ND had 300-400 kids, the ratio of coaches to campers was excellent. They stressed technique with some actual contact drills (no pads). Each camper's picture was taken with ND head coach, Charlie Weiss. Coach Weiss showed up regularly every day giving friendly greetings to everyone he passed by.

At UT, head coach Lane Kiffin was not in the pictures although there were less than half and many kids. Additionally, the kids received little technique instruction, at least the linemen, and primarily went through drills matching one against another. This further reinforced the feeling the camp was primarily for recruiting purposes. Tennessee also played loud hip-hop/rap music during many of the activities. Lyrics I heard referred to "Mother f***er", of something that sounded just like it, and "I'm a venereal disease." Stuff I wouldn't let me kids listen to but apparently approved by the UT football staff.

The staff at Notre Dame, coaching and other personnel, seemed much more professional than those at UT. The only thing I liked about UT's camp was that my son got to go up against a couple of big guys and he held his own. He won't face anyone like that during the season. The only thing my son liked about UT was the food. UT has always had a good Food Services department.

Everything about Notre Dame impressed me. Nothing about Tennessee did.

After the camps were over, my son and I talked about his goals. I told him how my sister had set a goal to be good enough to play for the Lady Vols. She wasn't that good but was good enough for 5 NCAA Division 1 colleges to offer her a scholarship. My son responded, "My goal is to be good enough to play for Tennessee, but I'll play for the University of Cincinnati." Although my father, mother, two sisters, one brother, and myself graduated for UT and my father taught there for his entire career, I approved his choice whole heartedly.

Performing a brief web search, I found a few articles that provide insight into the hate process. First, from Psychology Today, "Why We Hate." The article discusses a theory called "social identity," i.e. the need to divide the world into "us" and "them."

The drive to completely and quickly divide the world into "us" and "them" is so powerful that it must surely come from some deep-seated need. The exact identity of that need, however, has been subject to debate. The late Henri Tajfel, of the University of Bristol in England, and John Turner, of the Australian National University, devised a theory to explain the psychology behind a range of prejudices and biases, not just xenophobia. Their theory was based, in part, on the desire to think highly of oneself. One way to lift your self-esteem is to be part of a distinctive group, like a winning team; another is to play up the qualities of your own group and denigrate the attributes of others so that you feel your group is better.

The article exams the we vs. them in terms of race and ethnicity but the concepts can easily be applied to liberals vs. conservatives. Don't expect any mind blowing revelations. I found the article rather elementary.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin/March 1, 2003 outlines a seven step process of hate.

Stage 1: The Haters Gather
Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself
Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target
Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target
Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons
Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons
Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target

It seems obvious that a lot in Internet/blog hate falls in Stage 3 and Stage 4. David Letterman's "joke" concerning Willow Palin falls into Stage 3. Perhaps, calling tea-bagging morons racist reaches the level of taunting (Stage 4). A hater accusing someone else of hating seems to be a common theme in blog comments and posts.

The Internet provides a unique method of completing the first four stages of hating. You can "gather," define your group, disparage and taunt in forums, blogs, discussion groups, instant messaging, etc. So easy you don't even have to get out of your pajamas.

The FBI bulletin focuses on skinhead groups but gives an example of how the 7 stage hate model applies to other situations.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that this hate model has a wider application. For example, when a coworker becomes a hate target for reasons other than race, sex, or national origin, the hater immediately seeks out others in the office who dislike, or can be persuaded to dislike, the hated coworker (Stage 1). The group establishes an identity using symbols and behaviors. They use a lifted eyebrow, a code word to exclude the hated coworker from a lunch invitation, or any number of other actions to demean and isolate. The haters even may adopt a name for their group (Stage 2). At this point, the haters only disparage the hated coworker within their group (Stage 3). As time passes, the haters openly insult the hated coworker either directly or indirectly by allowing disparaging remarks to be overheard from afar (Stage 4). One morning, the hated coworker discovers his desk rearranged and offensive images pasted over a picture depicting his wife and children (Stage 5). >From the sophomoric to the terroristic, acts of hate have the same effect. Eventually, the haters sabotage the hated coworker's projects and attempt to ruin the individual's reputation through rumors and innuendoes (Stage 6). In so doing, the haters make the work environment intolerable for the hate target (Stage 7). Scenarios like this occur every day across America and, indeed, around the world. The targets of hate may change, but the hate process remains constant.

I find it encouraging that a couple of liberal bloggers that I read occasionally, Aunt B and Southern Beale have taken a step in the right direction in stopping hatred in political blogging although I believe they could look at the problem a little deeper. Reading some the commenters to Southern Beale's post, you can see hate from both sides and virtually no insight.

Check yourself. Are you in one of the stages of hate? I know I disparage liberals although I find greater satisfaction in remaining cool and pointing out their fallacies, prejudices and bigotry. In the words of Caskie Stinett, "Diplomat: A person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." At the least, we can all work to be good diplomats.

Reflecting on recent events, the shooting of Dr. Tiller, the soldiers in Arkansas, the guard at the Holocaust Museum, Rev. Wright's comments about Jews, and David Letterman's crude joke about Sarah Palin's daughter, my mind traveled to thoughts on the processes that build hate in the human mind. This is not to claim any esoteric insights but rather a mild exploration of what I've seen over the years.

As a child in parochial school, nuns taught me in no uncertain terms that hating someone was a ticket to hell. To this day, I refuse to say, or write, that I hate someone. I feel disgusted by some. I find some people loathsome. I recognize negative traits, even evil, in others. But, I don't hate them, perhaps out of fear of burning for eternity but, whatever the case, I don't hate them.

I wonder what, if any, sort of process or events that occur in a person's childhood and formative years that contribute to hating. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, inadequate love and caring from parents, I'm sure the list is almost endless. I'm also sure that two people experiencing the same life events could come out totally different.

Watching others from their teen years on, I noticed one pattern at least: that hate needs constant care and cultivation to grow and flourish. One couple I used to spend a lot of time with used to watch televangelists. They would sit on the couch and exclaim how they hated, yes they used that word, televangelists. They called them thieves, hypocrites, and worse. They would sometimes call and fake a donation to a televangelist claiming to be from the Mary Magdalene Home for Women or such. I always wondered why they watched if they found it so repulsive. I didn't care for televangelists either and simply didn't/don't watch them.

It's easy to see how the shooters in the recent events, and events past, often read materials and/or were part of groups that supported their hate. Often, their minds were so warped that books, TV shows, etc that had no intention of supporting hate were taken as such. Charlie Manson and the Beatles "White Album" come to mind as an excellent example of misinterpretation.

Interacting with others either feeds or starves the hate. Sometimes a hater finds moderation in others. Other times a hater finds fertilizer for hate. As with the couple above, they built their hate up over years of watching televangelists and similar activities.

Read some of the comments on this blog post regarding the Willow Palin joke.

...let’s clarify for all the hyperventilating GOPasaurs,

---

A neo-con loony shot up the Holocaust Museum, another shining example of the smelly piles of hate coming from the right,...

Neo-con loony? The guy hated neo-cons and may have been plotting to attack an conservative magazine office. Hate doesn't care about the truth.

I'm sure most people who hate don't consider it hate. They probably think something along the lines of "It's not hate. It's disdain they deserve because of who they are." The haters dehumanize the hated to the point that expressing hatred towards them feels as natural as ordering a Happy Meal at McDonald's.

I'm reminded of a truism: If you want to change the world, change yourself. You'll be guaranteed success. But, apparently, some find it quite rewarding to hate. They enjoy the burning fire and don't want to change. If whomever they hated changed so that they could no longer be hated, the haters would have to find some other object for their hate.

But, I still don't understand the need to hate. It takes a lot of effort to maintain hate. What a waste of emotion and energy, if nothing else.

P.S. Two other things I learned from the nuns and still live by today. Never test God or tempt the devil.

Believing it is their right to control public access to sources of information, liberals are now building a campaign to stomp out the showing, thus viewing, of Fox News channel in public places.

Whenever you’re in a public place–a bar, a restaurant, a dentist’s or doctor’s office–and they’ve got a TV on showing the Fox Terrorism Promotion Channel, a/k/a “Fox News,” ask them very politely to change the channel or to turn it off.

---

If someone asks why, just tell them that you can’t stand idly by while a TV network promotes domestic terrorism; if they refuse to change the channel, take your business elsewhere.

This all seems civil enough, nothing more than threatening financial harm if the business doesn't acquiesce to the liberal's demands. Mafia Lite so to speak. Naturally, it takes quite a bit of arrogance and conceit to believe one has the right to control every one's viewing. Of course, there's no shortage of arrogance and conceit in the liberal world.

Lest you believe this is a one man show, here's more. Liberals using a device to secretly turn off TVs when Fox News is showing.

I encourage people to fight this fascist attack on freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Request Fox News if it's not showing. I visited my doctor last week for my annual physical. He conveniently leaves the remote in the waiting room. Voila!!

After Obama Man, I had to post this. How can you not love Sammy Davis, Jr.? How many cute Jewish black guys are there out there?

Hilarious.

I noticed on my blogger dashboard this message:

This blog has been locked due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations. You may not publish new posts until your blog is reviewed and unlocked.

This blog will be deleted within 20 days unless you request a review.

As my blog is relatively mild, I suspect someone is trying to shut me down. Obviously a coward afraid of fighting the war of words.

Being raped shouldn't be part of any one's sentence. Prison rape often brings jokes or dark references to a "big bull queer named..." But, along with the U.S. holding the record for having the "largest prison population and the highest rate of incarceration in the world, prison rape poses a serious issue.

The extent of the problem varies according to the information source. Human Rights Watch estimates 140,000 rapes occur in U.S. prisons each year. The National Institute of Justice gives a low figure of 8,000.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics lists several intriguing points.

• An estimated 60,500 inmates (or 4.5% of all State and Federal inmates) experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving other inmates or staff.
• Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates reported an incident involving another inmate and 2.9% reported an incident involving staff.
• Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; 10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3%.
• Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct that exceeded 10%.

More of the incidents involve staff than not! Disgraceful. That 6 prisons had no reported incidents shows that prison rape can be minimized or eliminated.

Prison rape also causes spreading HIV at a higher rate than the population at large.

Considering that all prisons in the U.S. are under government control with a few being run by private companies with government oversight, allowing prison rape stands as a great moral failing of our society. Prison supposedly serves to punish and rehabilitate criminals. I fail to see rapes role in reaching this goal. Rather, most likely, it creates an angry, vengeful person bent on retribution against a society that trapped him/her in an inhuman environment.

Of course, I have my ulterior motives for writing about prison rape. That would be torture. In my recollection Instapundit and a few others are the only bloggers I've seen address the problem of prison rape. I can't recall reading a single word condemning prison rape in liberal blogs although, admittedly, I read fewer liberal blogs. However, I do review a few liberal blogs regularly looking for a fight.

Yet, virtually every liberal blog I've read and other liberal media outlets have howled about waterboarding. I don't support torture and realize atrocities occurred with POWs in Iraq and else where. But, why do the liberals howl so much about the waterboarding and ignore prison rape. Isn't it an international embarassment that we have so many people in prison and that rape is so prevalent? Don't the men and women in our prisons possess the same human rights at terrorists?

The answer is that the far left wingers don't care about the terrorists or our domestic prisoners. The waterboarding issue is nothing more than a tool to attack the opposition. If you look deep enough at the far left wingers, you'll find this pattern in virtually every issue. It's about grabbing power by any means, not caring.