JustThinking.us

As previously discussed, we love Fred Reed.

Click on Fred's photo to link up to his outstanding and provacative site

Vote? Why? ...

I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. ...

Who do I vote for? ...

I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday.

Who do I vote for?

There is no anti'war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran. I want to reduce the military by half and end the militarization of the country that is bankrupting us.

Who do I vote for? (ERP) 

I want to reduce the size of government, get rid of the departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce, toss the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and so on. What candidate wants to do these things? Republicans talk a good show, but which of them actually wants to cut?

I want to end affirmative action, which means governmental favor for some citizens over others, and rely on merit. No candidate speaks of this.

Who do I vote for?

I want to end the empire, quit meddling in the business of other countries, get out of South Korea, Japan, and NATO. I don't want to be the world's mommy.

Who do I vote for?

I want to reform America's dysfunctional system of taxation, go to a sales tax or flat tax or value-added tax, anything to get IRS off our backs. It isn't the amount of taxation that I dislike, but the intrusiveness, mystery, complexity, and lack of recourse.

Who do I vote for?

I want to reform the public schools, outlaw teachers unions, requires decent GRE scores from teachers, cut the propaganda and outlaw drugging of students.

Who do I vote for?

Why vote at all?

Nothing of substance is on the table, other than the desire of Republicans to attack Iran. 

The elections are supposed to indicate the presence of democracy, but they do not. Elections do not determine policy but only the division of spoils. An election in which candidates take no positions becomes a high-school popularity contest.

The way to have elections without having a democracy is to let the people vote, but not on anything.

Having a one party system called by two names is a technically slick way of disenfranchising the public without their noticing. In a parliamentary system all manner of politics would gain expression in proportion to their prevalence in the population.

With two identical parties, no dissenting view can ever gain office.

A masterly dodge, this.

Nobody around here has clue one what (ERP) means.

We love Fred Reed around here, and despite the fact that his subject matter is frequently ugly and/or brutal, we look forward to each new installment and struggle to refrain from linking up Fred On Everything everytime he posts.

While we don't always agree with Fred, his resume' forces us to always give strong consideration to his point of view.

Click anywhere on the excerpt below to link up to Fred's latest ..... you know, as of this instant.

"It wasn’t until ‘The Great Society’ and the ‘War on Poverty’ and Lyndon Johnson that the black family began to fall apart. The old adage is ‘The road to hell is paved in good intentions’, and I believe that the liberals that designed the welfare programs were well intentioned but WRONG.

Rules are meant to be broken and programs are designed for people to capitalize on the weak points and misapply them to their advantage.

This is what I saw happen with the black families when the father moved out, stayed down the street and only came by for conjugal visits which increased the family’s income.

The black father and young men were no longer hard working heads of the their families but part of disjointed groups that were intent on personal gratification and working the system and they developed a ‘plantation mentality’ with the government being the great provider and not the men of the family.”    Fred Reed

Fred Reed at Fred On Everything is back with an essay on Mexico and drugs.

Way double highly recommended.

If Mexico were not next to the world’s most ravening drug market, it would be a corrupt, but functioning and reasonably successful upper Third-World country.

If this were not so, Mexico would not have the huge number of American who have come here to retire.

But the country cannot withstand a drug business that, by a common figure, brings the traffickers forty billion dollars a year.

The money means that the cartels can buy heavier armament than can the government, as well as buy heavier officials on either side of the border.

(It is an American conceit that corruption exists only in other countries.)

One of the first posts at the old Justthinking.us was also one of the first posts brought across to the new (this) Justthinking.us.

It was titled, Race, Family, Crime and Poverty.

It mostly had to do with ....... you know ....... Race, Family, Crime and Poverty.

It ends with a short discussion of and link to the famed Moynihan Report of 1965, which offers the following on the state of affairs in Black America in that year.

The evidence — not final, but powerfully persuasive — is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling.

I was poking around at Fred on Everything this morning.

And having exhausted that content which offers a laugh at the expense of Fred's frustrations and outrage over the state of the world we live in, I scrolled upon his essay titled, Rape in Tennessee.

Among the items on Fred's long and strange resume' is a tour as the law enforcement columnist at the Washington Times.

The result of which is a point of view about race, cops, and crime that is not presented by organized media.

Fred on Everything is my new favorite site.

I can sit here and read and read and read and read, agree with much of it, and never once have my blood pressure go through the roof.

Most of the time, the more I agree with a guy, the more I just want to go out and throttle some other guy.

Not so much with Fred.

Way, double highly recommended.

Click anywhere an the quote below for the piece from which it was taken.

Now there's some thinkin!