My Colonoscopy and Stealing Pension Funds

I am high. I am pleasantly high and relaxed. Sort of feel as if I am floating. You see, today I had my first ever colonoscopy and they did not put me to sleep. I was given a mixture of drugs including Valium while they gave a look inside me and removed a polyp. Those who know me the best know that I don't even take aspirin when I have a headache. I just don't like taking pills that much and they seem to have a strong impact on me. They gave me some sort of liquid version along with some other drugs.

While the procedure was going on I chatted with the doctor and nurse. They were a captive audience and I find joking about things relaxes me. For those of you over 50 or who have concerns, I recommend you have the colonoscopy. I had to fast for a couple of days and drink some liquid that cleared me out in preparation for the procedure. In the end it was a walk in the park compared to having some hemorrhoids removed and even that was not that bad. As for the results, I don't have to have another for ten years, my colon was just fine and dandy.

There is something else that needs looking into and it is the thieves who are robbing the public pension funds. This matter needs to be investigated and the bankster polyps need to be removed from the system. I see a lot of articles about the public pension horror that is not. The real culprit, as I have often pointed out, is that there are a few on Wall Street who profit from robbing public pensions; but, that doesn't get written about much. There is a man who works for Rolling Stone magazine who is exposing what is going on. It is nice to see there are still some investigative reporters out there and I think you should read his latest article.

Rolling Stone Magazine - Looting the Pension Funds.

Yahoo - Breakout - Twitter Co-Founder’s Next Project Could Be Even Bigger. Another article about the coming electronic currency and how your biometrics will be required.

Now, a different subject. I want to talk about overpopulation. We hear a lot of talk about it and global warming; but, what is the real agenda. What is overpopulation in concept? Most of us would say that overpopulation is the situation that occurs when you have more people than the world can provide sufficient resources. We have not and are not close to reaching that amount of people. China with a population of about 1.5 Billion people does not have a starving population. India with 1.2 Billion people can feed all of its people. I recognize that both of these countries have a lower standard of living that America; but, we only have about 315 million people and grow enough to export to other countries. We could increase that if we wanted and without a lot of effort.

What if your definition of overpopulation was different than mine and you considered overpopulation to be having more people than you need to manufacture what you want. If you automate everything, you don't need as many people. A recent study claims that we will only need 47% of the number of workers that we currently have. The question then becomes what do you do with the other 53%? This is the overpopulation that bothers many of the people who run this world. They used to call having more people than were needed to make them money, "useless eaters" and the "great unwashed masses". Because we have outsourced our jobs, we have created a situation where the unemployed and low skilled are now seen as useless eaters by almost half of our population.

We are currently in a philosophical is being waged and most people do not understand the real issues because they don't understand how the language is being manipulated. Many on the right have taken to calling the wealthy "job creators". If the jobs they created are in other countries shouldn't we call them "job removers" or at least "foreign job creators"? It is a fair question. If an American company, such as Apple, has outsourced the majority of it's jobs to China, should we call them job creators? It is deceitful and does not show the whole story.

Okay, lets try this. You work hard and save and raise two kids. Would you tell one of them that because they won't have a job in the future (50% loss in jobs because of automation) that they are a useless eater and refuse to feed them? Let us look at this again in another way. What if everyone in America could live twice as well; but, only half of us ever had to work? Would the other half be useless eaters or would we just starve them to death. We do that with foster kids.

At 18, kids in the foster care program are dropped, they just stop getting help and are on their own. Many end up homeless and on the streets, the exceptional ones are found and rescued. A complete aside, I have Central serous retinopathy (csr). It was caused by continued stress over a long period of time, so much stress that a chemical our bodies create when stressed permanently disabled my left eye. When I had my procedure today I mentioned that I had that to my nurse. She had not heard of it and neither had my doctor. It is not as common as one might hope; but, it is not uncommon to develop csr.

If you had two kids and only one would ever have a job, would you starve the other to death? How much time would you give them to get a job, to determine which was and was not a worthless eater? Neither fascists or communists believe in useless eaters. Both groups believe in Euthanasia. We claim to find that appalling, yet, many here feel the same and think it is for different reasons. What happens when we lose half of our remaining jobs? We try and tell ourselves anyone can get a job; but, how can that be where there are fewer jobs available than the population?

A trust fund baby is a child that is born wealthy and can live extravagantly off of money that an ancestor left to them without ever having worked in their life. Are they useless eaters? If a rich mans kid is given a job by an American company because they got a contract for a lot of money from the rich kid and then don't work, are they useless eaters. If we are going to use a scale to weigh who is unnecessary, should it be based on how much money they have or what actual contribution they make to society?

The pension battle is about just this issue. If you can save up for a pension or 401k or whatever you save so that someday you retire then most of us would commend you.