Previously Posted under the name: “Junk Mail“
Note Hillary’s picture on a piece of it featured in the teaser photo.
See the teaser photo’s upper left hand corner.
A look back to …Monday, June 22, 2015:
This is a comment which follows a comment that I posted on my FB page earlier last weekend.
Please! No more Junk Mail Please!
I know of no one who appreciates junk mail any less than I do …particularly political junk mail … most of which comes without regard to what would otherwise convey and build the substance of ones understanding of an issue …in a way which is by reason void and consistently delivered without any content …which, by the way …is persistently consistent with endless drivel.
I mean, it is one thing to receive endless annoying offers …but why should I be made to be defenselessly subjected any Tom, Dick or Hillary’s opportunity to nickel and dime me to death without an accompanying well defined good cause whose offer’s logic holds to a lines are delivered through well explained good reason?
And so, who will save me from this wretched torment’s deluge that bombards me day after and day?
So, it is also personally frustrating that such natural resources are being squandered in such a fruitless manner …so much so, that it baffles my mind when I try to grasp the view of junk mail’s impact on the environment.
As such, I can’t help but also wonder …why haven’t environmentally-minded liberals yet, figured out a way to offer us a say in the matter …one in the form of a better choice …one which would include the choice to opt-out of junk mail. Why hasn’t this been a part of the narrative by now?
Oh! Excuse me! I forgot that …by today’s definition…liberals are not actually about true choice …false hope maybe…but not true choice.
I mean, in regards to “choice” … there’s only one Hillary …but there are many conservative alternatives.
What’s that all about …if not but true, open, honest and clear CHOICE?
And so, in the continued thread of “…choice…” that beyond merely “…going postal …I naturally got to thinking about the scarcity of various forms of wasted resources …particularly those that junk mail produces, and in this light, it also came to light that, perhaps …being offered such a novel choice would solve my dilemma with junk mail. However, it also occurred to me that …this might likely be politically counter-intuitive with respect to most politicians’ better interests.
Then, suddenly …my vain imaginations led me to fear a most plausible…yet most unimaginable sinister scenario that …perhaps, in some diabolical sense, politicians may have already devised just such a scheme in which they have actually already managed to monetize the US Postal Service to serve to their own advantage.
So, after no small willingness to entertain and admit that this possibility might actually be a reality , I am thereby more inclined to believe that politicians…in a more certain context … are not above whatever actually might provide any excuse which continues to blindly promote what may clandestinely enhance this inefficient aspect of the mail services …campaign finance reform not withstanding.
For that matter …now, would be a good time to bring up non-profits and what political processes should provide oversight of such. But with respect; I will refrain from taking undue inordinately greater focus on The Clinton Foundation and the IRS’ inordinate scrutiny of conservative groups seeking non-profit status ….and whatever else that might have a concession on one’s right to choose life free from government oppression.
Whatever happened to choice then …in liberty and justice for all?
Am I to understand that the meaning of choice is become redefined merely to fit some liberal, politically correct, temporarily expedient, politically correct application?
Actually, from a practical standpoint, I can think of no other greater unholy justification for the continuance of these masquerades’ continuance.
Choice? Choice …my ass!
As such, lacking the opportunity to affect anything which would resemble better choices, one must conclude …as I…that such unsolicited junk mail’s waste merely constitutes just one of many other well hidden masquerades which continue unchecked so as to promulgate just one of many other most egregious public frauds being conducted right under our very noses.
Talk about being willfully defrauded…will you…?!
But that’s cheap! After all, talk is of no value. It is action which speaks louder that words and is far more precious.
Well then, in taking aim at the intertwined costs associated with all forms of junk mail …both in terms of both the natural and monetary expenses …this all got me to wondering about what I posted last weekend to my FB page …specifically with respect to the nature of political spending by any one of the growing number of Republican candidates whose access to funds must surely compete for scarce resources.
Alas! In the rage of my digression’s preoccupation with junk mail, I realize that I must unavoidably now, be enter a rather precarious intersection …even if I could rest foolishly in the delusions of falsely believing that I have satisfactorily argued to justify a call to end such indiscriminate junk mail campaigns’ nerve-racking solicitations.
But …I won’t. I must be above this lesser trap’s fallacy of delusion.
No! One must be real.
No such exemptions exist in reality and I can not kick against the pricks as it were.
As such, instead …I must conclude that these mailings represent an enormously large financial load to any one …and all candidates alike …both the liberal one …as well as the conservative many.
Therefore, as much as I loathe junk mail, and seeing that all political parties abuse the public alike in this manner; I am ever more made to consider the real costs politicians must bear in all their efforts to reach the public with their messages …direct mailings representing belonging only to one choice to do so.
However, by all measures of the costs to conduct a political campaign …the standard of greatest opportunity to measure what makes for the greatest efficiency among many choices may well come in the contrasting the overall weight of spending across a party to party comparison by looking across the fields of both parties candidates.
So, then …this becomes not so much about the numbers as it is about the cost and weight, will and ability to actually provide the public with true choice.
Therein, what weight the number of liberal’s candidates (…a will of one only? ) will need to spend in order to send their candidate on to The General elections …likely will be considerably a lighter weight than what (all the) heavy weights conservatives will spend (in efforts) to send their field of candidates just through to the primary …let alone what (dry powder reserves) will be needed to go on to the General Elections.
By any measure of compare, the significance of this consideration’s contrast should be easy to see. There really is only one liberal candidate in the race for the presidency. (Therefore…) Hillary’s campaign’s concentrated war chest’s funds should be well positioned …for the most parts…. to carry through to fund and execute in the General Elections.
However, by virtue of the sheer numbers, the conservatives’ camps may not share the luxury of Hillary’s exclusivity.
Oh! My! Shazam! The number and camps of the conservatives are still growing.
That’s a lot of mouths to feed, yes …save one, no?
Therefore, in their camps financial respective perspectives …the scarcity of natural cash resources …unity not withstanding …(JUNK MAIL MATTERS …LIKE …) reaching out to people most likely is of greatest concern. (LOGIC AND REASON …UNDERSTANDABLY …NOT SO MUCH.)
(Chip in …Chip out ….Chip in …Chip out ….Chip in ….etc., etc., etc.)
Therefore there is great reason to distinguish one’s candidate well beyond basic commonalities, if to adequately justify (an explanation of ) any financial solicitations.
(Chip in …Chip out ….Chip in …Chip out ….Chip in ….etc., etc., etc.)
Napoleon said; “…an army marches on its stomach…â€
However, with respect to whatever might bring to bear (the differences between) (more than…) 10 distinguishable primary candidates consist of (an equally divers number of) matters which affect the heart …differences whose differences are divided and far from the madding crowd among (the growing number of) segmented conservative groups.
And in terms of diversity; in this case …that’s going to cost plenty of money …(the importance of …) all unity (set) aside.
However, in contrast to what, I’m sure that the liberal camp would have me see as its perception of its base unity; the conservative camp would have me see as greater opportunity by reason and virtue which arises from offering choice which empowers and promotes the better part of whatever produces the best of all possible opportunities from which to choose.
So, I must ask what drives freedom better than what works to promote True Unity …and in True Unity, what works better to provide greater choice and in the wake of ever-expanding choices, whose choices stimulate and invigorate a free market that seeks out the best soil on which to lay down sound and lasting foundations which promote the legacies of success which follow honest, tough and hard competition …which, above all …promotes open and free-flowing forms of spirited conversations that naturally seek clear paths to real solutions …those which fly far above those which foster and promote the division of shame and blame.
So, here are some thoughts to keep in mind going into the run-up to the primaries.
Harmony thrives wherever there is unity.
Parasitic despotism on the other hand, needs only to sow the seeds of discord and discontentment of turmoil. (The squeaky wheel does not always get the bacon …it gets replaced by ball bearings.)
Which wolf are you going to feed?
In the mean time, while you make your choice; please, hold all the junk mail. I pay taxes.