A guest post by Gonzo Alfman (a friend of Huppy’s):

THE STATE OF THE STATE OF THE UNION
OR
THE WAY THINGS SEEM TO BE.

AN APOLOGIA

This is by no means a scholarly treatise and in no way does it pretend to be. There was no research in those tomes shelved in great libraries. There are no citations to great works, no et seqs or op cits or ibids. This is merely a presentation of the author’s beliefs based on his experiences and accumulated perceptions during his life and the observations and opinions derived therefrom and the same are colored, as all such are, by his biases, such as those might be. I do not ask the reader, should might even there be one, to adopt the opinions and beliefs set forth herein, but only to give open and fair consideration to any proffered matters that might be revealed.

BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR REAR
OR A BUCKET OF WATER IN YOUR FACE
I’m certain that there are those scholars and academics with credentials much superior to mine, and I harbor no ill will against their pursuits, who are capable of more sensitive and intricate analysis and might, not without reason, say that my take on the way things seem to be is, well, simplistic, black and white, even. I might even be willing to agree with that. I might be, but I’m not. Thing is, for all that scholarly and academic pedantry, useful as it might be for writing books ad genteel discourse, a man I respected once said to me, “When your rear is up to alligators, son, it ain’t no time to be thinking about draining the swamp.” Pretty black and white. A simple evaluation, but true. No?

Truth is, as I see it, our rears are up to alligators and they have been since 1774. Question is, which I shall later address, what the hell we gonna do about it? What can we do about it? This writing crap is easy, but taking action . . .

If someone were to blow smoke up your rear, you might not pick up on it so fast because it’s a cowardly act of subterfuge that might take time to uncover. Still, a smart move on their part if they can pull it off. However, if that same individual threw a bucket of water in your face and tried to tell you it was raining, well, shoot, you’d know right quick he was lying through his teeth. My contention is that the U.S. politicos ain’t quite sharp enough to blow smoke up our rears and, out of necessity, they try to then tell us it’s raining after throwing a bucket of water in our faces. I’m not certain where this fits in, but the whole problem is exacerbated

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
“All men are created equal . . . endowed with certain inaliable rights . . . Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Ain’t that just about some crap? That was written by a bunch of fat, elite, wealthy, heterosexual, white males. Women and Blacks weren’t created equal. Native Americans, whose eventual extermination had already begun, certainly weren’t created equal either. I mean, all Men and Women and Blacks and what’s left of Native Americans are just not created equal and because of that all Men and Women and Blacks and Native Americans and also, more recently, Asians and Hispanics simply do not have the same equal access to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Not by a long shot. Some are born with more intelligence, and/or talent, and/or creativity and thus have more ability. Some are born into privilege and wealth and, thus, have more social maneuverability. Those things give them more than an edge. They make them immeasurably more equal than others and able to attain immeasurably more “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The great majority of peoples are not born so well endowed wealth-wise and so fortunate and the great majority are born with just average intelligence, and/or talent, and/or creativity or even a little below and, thus have proportionately that much less “access” and, so, are only able to less “pursue”. And what about those who are born with virtually no endowments; those who are born into abject poverty, or severly physically and/or mentally disabled? These ones maybe only dream of “access”.
A friend, an academic, tells me the whole thing is complicated by the Eurocentric notion of equality. I know nothing about that stuff, but I believe him and whatever he’s got to say about that I incorporate herein and by reference and make it apart hereof.
In a letter, George Washington, in sum and substance, said, “I believe that all men are equal, but it shall not do to get too close to the commoners for then they shall lose sight of whom are fit to rule.”

“All men are created equal” is the greatest scam since religion. Forget it, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

TAXES
Do you know how and where you tax dollars are spent? I pay approximately 25% of my income for taxes. 25%! Some pay more and some pay less. I’m informed that Mitt “fukkin” Romney pays only 15% for taxes. I don’t know what Obama or all them senators and congressmen pay, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was less than I pay. But 25%! That’s 25 cents on every dollar. That leaves me with 75 cents on every dollar I sweat for picking Massa’s cotton. For what that 25%? And this isn’t counting the taxes you pay when you buy gasoline, prepared food, clothing, an automobile, furniture, toys for your kids, household appliances and materials, tobacco, alcohol, and every time going on or through a bridge or tunnel (tolls are taxes), and Sweet Jesus knows what else (almost all of which are life-sustaining items and my physician advises me that a glass or two of wine with dinner is good for the heart.) How about those parking meters? I don’t know, but I’ll put money on the table that when everything is taken into consideration, I probably pay 50% or close to that in taxes of what I earn to fill the King’s coffers. My “elected” officials have never really told me in a point-blank direct kind of way how those tax dollars are spent, but I believe they mostly go to fat-cat congressional and senatorial budgets. You know, traveling to and from their mansions and back to Washington and those dinners. And White house and grounds upkeep. And, you know, to bail out those banks (nobody bailing me out.) And to pay for the salaries and bonuses of all them big-ass CEOs and whatever perks they can glom. And it goes to arms and materials for wars and the military so the U.  S. of freaking A. can invade any land it chooses for any reason or even for no reason – “Mission Accomplished” – and attempt to install therein its capitalistic system, religions, and customs with McDonald’s and Taco Bell and Exxon and CitiBank to cinch the deal. And it goes to any government or insurgent group that we (‘they’, actually) want to support. And, you know, some of it goes for the President’s Air Force One obscene Jet. He gets a jet? How much you figure that Jet red carpet costs? Let alone the freaking plane with a wet bar, individual TVs, steaks and caviar and grilled game hens, or whatever else his Lordship might want to eat.

Wouldn’t you like some of that, maybe just a little bit, maybe for some of that to “trickle down” in your pocket? Maybe? In your heart don’t you believe you deserve it after picking all that cotton for him?

WEALTH DISPARITY
THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM
The two-party system is the second greatest scam since religion. You can vote for this one or that one. Those are your choices. Take it or leave it. And really, do the people even get to pick those two individuals? No, two or three are put on a platform by their respective parties, you know, the elephants and the donkeys, for the primaries because they’ve licked enough envelopes and have toed the party line and got enough money, or will get enough money, to maybe go the distance. Who else do we get to opt and vote for? We get, simply, whom we are presented with. We get the from the five or six they’ve selected. What other choice do we have? No one else got the money to play this game. Oh, yeah, the write-in ballot.

Saw once a cartoon: Two posters on a wall. One said, “VOTE FOR SMITH, HE’ll CUT OFF BOTH YOUR LEGS.” The other one said, “VOTE FOR JONES, HE’LL ONLY CUT OFF ONE OF YOUR LEGS.” As I’ve said, I’m no scholar political scientist, but, shoot, ‘pears to me that’s pretty much on the money. ‘Pears to me . . .

WAR
They tell us we’re going to war. They’re not going to war, we’re going to war. We’re going to war, they tell us for the flag and our beliefs and the American Way and Democracy and apple pie and the honor of Motherhood and the girl next door. Well, yeah, but seems to me, y’know, they’re not going to war, we go to war and we are sent to war for their power or land or money or oil or gold or any kind of wealth or the like. Seems to me.

I know I’ve said I’ve got no citations, but the following, from reading, come to mind.
The poet, Wilfred Owens, a British Lieutenant, WW I, his poem Dulce Et Decoum Est Pro Patria Mori (It Is Sweet and Right to Die for Your Country) – recounts a battle where his men were destroyed by tanks and gas. He was appalled. He vomited. But he was conflicted by Nobles Oblige.

The writer, Dalton Trumbo, in his WW I novel “Johnny Got His Gun” speaks through the voice of a soldier (American, English, French?) without any arms or legs and no face and the soldier says, “If they tell you to pick up a rifle and go to war, throw down that rifle and run away because if you don’t, you might get dead. I know, I’m dead.”

War ain’t about all the crap they tell you it’s about. It’s about 18 year old boys huddled in a corner crying for their momma. It’s about those boys trying, any way they can, not to get hurt. And, finally, it’s about those boys losing their arms and legs or crying and dying with their guts and blood running all over everything. It’s about babies and old people and anyone else in the way getting shagged. That’s what war’s about. We didn’t think about the flag and our beliefs and the American Way and Democracy and apple pie and the honor of Motherhood and the girl next door. We just cried and tried not to get hurt. That’s what war’s about. I know. Ask me, I’ll tell you.

FREE SPEECH
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” That seems plain and simple – “no law.”

When I was in law school, I enrolled in a course titled ‘First Amendment Freedoms.’ There was a two volume set for the course which contained all those statutes and all those Supreme Court cases that did no more than abridge the freedom of speech for whatever reasons. When I brought this to the attention of the constitutional scholar, the renowned Prof. Cyril Means, Esq., he replied, “All things are governed by the felt exigencies of time and circumstances.” Whereupon I replied, “So, even though it says ‘no law’ it really doesn’t mean ‘no law’, does it, professor, and it means something else? Well, what, then, does it mean, professor? Because it seems to me, professor, that ‘no law’ means ‘no law’.”

It really doesn’t matter how they restrict your free speech through statute or case law because even without that they restrict you. If you own a radio or television station or a newspaper or magazine (essentially politically controlled), you can make your views known to millions, but if you don’t what you get is a soap box in Union Square Park provided, of course, that you’ve applied to NYPD for the necessary and appropriate permits in triplicate before the required number of days preceding you requested assembly which might be summarily denied for any number of unknown reasons. And whether you receive the permit or not, is this not a restriction? And then what? You get to address 250 people on a soap box in Union Square while the politically controlled media gets to address millions.

Free speech means unhampered and uncensored access to the media.

TO BE CONTINUED…