Friday, December 14, 2007
The debate was for President of the United States between then-incumbent Jimmy Carter and Governor Ronald Reagan.
"MR. CARTER: Barbara, one of the blights on this world is the threat and the activities of terrorists. At one of the recent economic summit conferences between myself and the other leaders of the western world, we committed ourselves to take strong action against terrorism. Airplane hijacking was one of the elements of that commitment. There is no doubt that we have seen in recent years - in recent months - additional acts of violence against Jews in France and, of course, against those who live in Israel, by the PLO and other terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the most serious terrorist threat is if one of those radical nations, who believe in terrorism as a policy, should have atomic weapons. Both I and all my predecessors have had a deep commitment to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In countries like Libya or Iraq, we have even alienated some of our closest trade partners because we have insisted upon the control of the spread of nuclear weapons to those potentially terrorist countries. When Governor Reagan has been asked about that, he makes the very disturbing comment that non-proliferation, or the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, is none of our business. And recently when he was asked specifically about Iraq, he said there is nothing we can do about it. This ultimate terrorist threat is the most fearsome of all, and it's part of a pattern where our country must stand firm to control terrorism of all kinds."
here you can see that George W. Bush has effectively taken Jimmy Carter's position on Iraq, Iran, and the War on Terror, and duped the whole country, including the non interventionist followers of the Reaganites into supporting Jimmy Carter's position in the name of being strong on defense. The same Jimmy Carter who lost his reelection due to appearing soft on defense and letting the US Military, which was weak from years of wear and tear in Vietnam, fall to shambles, similarly to what is happening now in these unconstitutional aggressive wars.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
libertarians believe in repealing the common law application of the 14th ammendment to corporations.
please read and digest this before you write any more of your 2nd grade noam chomsky book reports parading as political essays.
in a libertarian free-society, corporations would by nature be illegal. companies would be tied to a persons well being, and would be forced to die when they failed to be productive. This would immediately kill the concept of Wal Mart, and empower the SMALL BUSINESS, aka the mom-and-pop shop, and the local community.
without a 14th ammendment application to the PUBLIC INSTITUTION of the CORPORATION there would be no such thing as a robber baron, or the tyrrany of the industry.
CORPORATISM is the tyranny of the industry against the consumer, and is a PUBLIC INSTITUTION and a step towards SOCIALISM.
if you want to debate against libertarianism you cannot ignore that fact.
it comes off as ignorant and uneducated.
it is not because of the New Deal and Great Society that we are "saved" from corporations. it is from these things that we appeased and submitted total authority to corporations.
the 14th ammendment gave personhood to corporations in common law in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. This allowed them protections such as 1st ammendment(being able to donate sums of money to political candidates) and the ability to work "for profit", all in the format of limited-liability, where you can abandon the entity at any time without any personal accountability.
please study the "corporate personhood debate" before you judge libertarianism, or decide that Noam Chomsky's brief's are your new hugging ground.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Political activism has taken a turn in the past twenty or so years. Gun ownership has been spun, almost in the fault of lobbying groups like the NRA, as an extention of some redneck natural right to hunt big game. The reason the constitutional design of the United States of America included a right to bear arms was to allow for a militia. This has nothing to do with your committment to the flag, the president, or thewar on terror. The Second Ammendment was added to give you a means by which to protect the rule of law in the constitution FROM the powers of state, such as the president, the military, the police, etc. The founders did not realize or believe that the federal military could ever be stronger than their militia, but just in case, the right to bear arms was provided for.
This is not a right to a hunting rifle, a pistol, or any weapon suitable for either home defense or hunting. This is, effectively, a right to raise a militia of the people with the same or stronger military might of the state itself.
This is the design of our system of government. Removing a systemic component without replacing its function would be like taking the rear axle off of your car and replacing it with nothing. Now the primary check and balance of the people, the militia, effectively doesn't exist, and the mainstream media has so effectively spun the issue with one sided hit pieces that the people are eager to give awaythis crucial piece of design of our system.
Let's look at the intent of the right to bear arms. The government was built under the concept that government is run by mortal men who tend to corrupt when bathing in sociopolitical power. This required checks and balances to ensure that noone could seize undue control over the lives of the citizens and push laws on them that they found unacceptable. One of the strongest forms of power is military. Enforcement of the law requires the usage of weaponry, and creation of systems of power can be taken on by these means as well. Knowing that public officials, military generals, police, etc might begin operating in a way which is not legal according to the rule of law, a government of the people should empower the people to defend themselves against rogue activity. The sheer capability would discourage such activity as the power to do so wouldn't exist. For example, if a law enforcement officer or corrupt official wanted to push something on you which is in violation of a law, and you, your brother, and father all possessed assault weapons and had rigorously trained with a militia, a simple phonecall to your neighborhood troops would create a very sticky situation for the corrupt official. The knowledge that this outcome was a real possibility would prevent such actions.
Now the next emotional extention of this, is the fear that this militia would undue the rule of law because without a military edge the state couldn't defend the rule of law either! However in a government of the people, the laws reflect the morality of the people the laws govern. This would mean you would now have an ADDITIONAL law enforcement agency, your neighbors. The odds that a people would only support laws in contradiction with their own desired way of life in a majority is negligable. Essentially these laws would be created in support of the people, and if someone wanted to go "virginia tech" he would no longerhave support of his community, who would consider him a threat to their safety and act as a first line of defense.
Only through the total failure of a politician would you ever have a showdown between the military or law enforcement and the people, and if it were to happen, which it rarely would, it would probably be necessary in order to protect the rule of law.
For those of you who trust the government and feel this is an unreasonable thought, think about HR 1955, Patriot Acts episode 1 and 2,military commissions act, and the ending of the posse comitatus act. In the terms of the past two presidents we've seen the first and second ammendments, the writ of habeas corpus, unwarranted search and seizure,and cruel and unusual punishment protections thrown out the window. If you feel that Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other iconic figures of our past would want their images used to promote a government that doesn't enforce the rule of law they risked their life in a revolution to establish, you're living in a fantasy world.
The final argument you get against constitutional provisions is that they are antiquated, and not with the times. Although this is a very blanket and somewhat poorly rationed statement (the strongest argumentyou ever get for it is that the "founding fathers never imagined a world with [insert piece of technology here]" without explaining how this piece of technology makes liberty impossible and fascism or socialism suddenly a good idea again), I will address it: our current system is a decaying constitutional republic with authoritarian socialist tendencies. It only gets its power through a contract with the people short of a military coup. Knowing this, to say constitutional republics are out of date is a nice argument for abandoning the system, provided you have a totally new system and can get the support of the people. If instead you intend to fix it by just perverting a constitutional republic by selectively enforcing certain laws and ignoring others you are effectively creating nothing, which is something worse. This strategy is similar to a model tee car owner who, upon discovering the invention of jet airplanes, attatches a jet engine and landing gear to his car trying to keep with the times. This does notmake an airplane, this just makes a really screwed up dangerous car.
Now more than ever, you need a gun, the founding fathers warned us that this would happen, and we're not listening. They went to war with the English over a stamp tax. Warrentless wiretapping, torture, arresting people without trial, thought crime bills, 30% taxation, some of which is going to fund things which were not authorized legislatively, direct taxation, suppression of freedom of speech and the right to beararms... Next time you look at a picture of George W Bush or BillClinton in the White House with George Washington's picture behind them, be a pal and warn them to watch their back.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Let's look on the bright side! If corporations refuse to defend items under 25$ in value, then purchases less than this are now free! Do not pay for items or trips which are under this value, the employees have been told to not follow or enforce it.
The New York Times originally reported on this change in policy, which can be linked from here also.
if public corporations are going to abuse the rule of law, and circumvent the constitution and free market by changing the rules, then they are the new law. This means laws they do not intend to enforce towards their own private property cease to exist.
If there's a bright side to corporatism, and its excess, it is the fact that now all items of this value(25$ or less) are free at WalMart!
from an ethical standpoint, it will financially hinder them if more people took advantage of this policy! Do your patriotic duty and get some free candy!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
the two TRUE "US American" Political Parties: The Environmentalist Death Cult and the Revelations Death Cult
We have two "mainstream" "moderate" political parties of note, at least as portrayed by our Sci Fi Channel meets Faces of Death mainstream media. On the "right" as its called, although on what scale i have no idea, is the FoxNews-radical-islam-is-the-antichrist-every-third-world-country-is-about-ten-seconds-away-
on the left is the global-climate-change-is-real-its-proven-to-be-science-that-the-world-will-both-melt-
i suggest we start a new party... the world isn't about to be destroyed, give me my civil liberties party back. or the sanity party. its funny that most of the people who support the "sanity party" are painted now as radicals or extremists. to say you want representative government, or that second ammendment rights are necessary to check and balance against a super military power have now become the rantings of the madmen in the asylum, according to news pundits on either TBN(foxnews) or the Sci Fi Channel(CNN).
granted, in some cases our usage of natural resources is unsustainable, and there may be occasions where if we aren't mindful of that, we will run into shortages, and either need to change what we use to something more sustainable, last minute, which could result in problems, albeit short term and eventually fixable. i will grant any environmentalist that, and they serve a great role as reminders of some things we ought to pay more attention to. the idea, though, that we are verging on total destruction of the world if we don't kill off most of the human population on earth, is really pushing it to me.
radical environmentalism is as dangerous and extreme as anyone on any side of the fence, and we do not need that type of attitude wielding totalitarian power at the federal level. let me show you some of the most insane stuff out there.
start with this London Post piece about a thinktank saying that children are bad for the environment.
or how about this gem where Professor Pianka at the Texas Academy of Science delivered a speech suggesting using an airborne ebola virus to wipe out 90% of the earth's human population to save the environment.
or how flatulent sheep and cows cause global warming.
now granted, this is quite a few steps away from recycling your cans, or being into the idea of using alternative fuels, or a scientific effort to make more usable or ecosystem compatible emissions from combustion engines... those things could all provide things that improve our quality of life. But the idea that human beings invented sheep, by some unnatural process created by the devil, and that if we don't both undo our existence, and the existence of sheep... this is the stuff of psuedoscience.
in fact, wherever politics and science meet... thats quite similar to the conjunction where religion and science meet. the subsects are incompatible. look, for example, at the attempt via science to justify the events described in the bible. First of all, the bible does not at any point indicate that it is a scientific text. the people who wrote and recorded information in it, did not clarify when they were making a poetic point, only that they were giving testimony and accounts, which were limited by their knowledge at that moment. any measurement in the bible, whether it be of time or space, is limited by the number of translations, the accuracy of the tools of measurement in a completely unrelated era, and the perspective of the person doing the testimony. to take what is said literally, and try and make it make sense with modern, constantly changing sciences, is always going to be a failure. its not a scientific record, and it does not work as one. it also does not claim to be one, it is simply a bundle of testimonies, found in a variety of locations, translated a lot of times.
the same can be said of the politicization of science. scientists who pursue the "flavor of the month" sciences go where the money is at. Public interest is always a product of both the media, and the interests of the politicians who tend to set the stage for what issues will be the most important. Scientific public interest, especially in the case of federal funding or industrial funding, tends to attract the "working scientists". The "working scientists", like those who work in any creative art, are the ones who have the smallest connection to the ethics of the field... aka their primary interest is money. There are plenty of scientists who believe that a meteor may strike the earth, or a comet, yet because this does not appeal to our sense of guilt, we are less likely to freak out, panic, and fund a missle program or some other crazy, irrelevant effort to stop an uncontrollable force of nature. similarly, since AIDS appeals, both on a sexual and a guilt level, it tends to draw much more funding than something like a malaria epidemic, which is very murderous in africa also.
The overall point here, is that, while climate change is something we now have the ability to monitor, we should definately keep an eye on it. But the fact that we have a mainstream belief now that the destruction of the earth is guaranteed by a slow and gradual warming trend, only 20 years past a scientific concensus that we were on our way to an ice age, despite no evidence of human population being totally wiped out by a slow warming trend every before is at the best reactionary... and at the worst, a scientific doom cult. the likes of which promised us doom at y2k, an ice age in the 60s, and nonstop comet attacks that never happened.
be skeptical, even when people say "science".
if it whines like a death cult, suggests radical things like killing humans like a death cult, and obsesses on one fatal conclusion like a death cult.... its a death cult.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
While the practical applications of the sciences explode at rates untold; guided as much by the fantasies of science fiction as practical schematics of engineers, we have reached a new low in philosophical evaluation of the state of nature and humanity. For the longest time we squandered all of our energies on foolish humanism, which clearly gives us no other practical application than to understand that social systems of certain sizes are dangerous, as are human beings in general. This weak paradigm lead to all kinds of butchery of language, including a dominant principle that natural and synthetic are on opposite poles(something you whole foods and organic food fans are conned out of top dollar over) despite being two totally unrelated terms. Natural is "present in or produced by nature." Synthetic means a product of synthesis, which is "an integration of two or more pre-existing elements which results in a new creation." Natural things are all things which exist in life, including human beings and actions of human origin. The perversion of language to include the idea that human action is unnatural is a intellectual fallacy of humanism.
Only "C" Student elitism could perceive human action as superior to nature, or supernatural, and therefore not a natural process. Therefore when one agues that huge granite buildings or landfills or plastics or nuclear fission are synthetic crimes of the "godlike" human over its inferior victim, nature, they are fundamentally asserting that humanity is superior to these nature, and not a part of or construct of it.
What if nature's intention or long term plan were to reformat the earths surface with plastics and metals, and we were simply the bottomfeeder catalysts doing her work? Could a man actually stop the expansion and construction of New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles? Are these phenomena, which are "human" and "synthetic" preventable or controllable by human means at this point?
No. Like a tsunami, tornado, or earthquake, this extreme channeling of human energy comes from a place greater than human intellect. The fact that we can't see this leads to fruitless pursuits, such as a goal of mitigating human impact on nature. Let it be known that in order to actually prevent human impact on nature, by human means, one must control humanity, even to the point of our population itself. Not that our population is particularly troubling, compared to other existing parts of nature, such as water, blades of grass, certain minerals, our presence is relatively insignificant. It's difficult to tell that from behind human eyes, as we tend to stack on top of one another in such a way as to believe the world is teeming with an out of control human population. The main operating concept here, however, is that proponents of this elitist philosophy would have to eventually consider control of human population as a means to an end of mitigating human impact on the other components of nature that we have decided are pretty enough to value. This is an unacceptable perversion of a paradigm, the likes of which already has its hints in post-humanism.
True wisdom is in the classics; submission to nature, respecting what we can and cannot affect, and that we don't really have a great understanding about what the consequences of anything we do are in the bigger picture or longer term.
Nature has proven that it favors change, and that chaos descends into order when viewed in closer perspective. This being said, a preservationist view to nature, that humanity is put on earth to try and prevent change in natural processes or that we are there to affect change in a very slow, limited way, and that any human change which happens too quickly or too radically is wrong is an arbitrary, absurd thought. We have no idea the consequences of our actions. We may well spend hundreds of millions of dollars, many man hours of work, and tons of resources on preserving a natural park which will just be tossed to the curb twenty years later by a particularly terrible storm, fire, or earthquake. If she chooses to do it with a fire caused by a lightning striking a tree it is sacred, if she chooses to do it by creating a vandal smoking meth out of a hollowed out iron wrench, its wicked.
I'm not advocating for the destruction of all plant and wildlife on the planet earth, nor am I advocating for the focus of all humanity on science and technology, I'm just calling for a realistic, reasonable perspective on human impact on the world around us. We may in fact not be the last stage in its development, propelling it towards its termination, but... maybe a minor, insignificant player in a much longer more complex system.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Understanding a Libertarian Free Market, and how it differs from a Neoconservative George Bush free market
I have been a Libertarian, first, from birth by Constitutional indoctrination, as this is the ideal that the founders of our Nation framed it under, and second, by what I learned studying political theory in college.
Once one becomes attracted to the deeper political systems that laterally influence the mainstream American political parties, its a blessing and a curse.
First off, the social liberties i expect, both from my constitution, and from my belief in the concept of free-action and non-aggression, are implied, and some of them are reflected in both political parties. essentially, I, and others like me, believe that one should be allowed to do any voluntary action, both singularly or in groups, so long as no one else's rights are aggressed upon. These being human rights or property rights. This seems simple enough, but when you apply it situationally, it gets much trickier. You can't support it unless you believe in that principle itself, the principle that ones fate should be at their own mercy, and not at that of another, even potentially to a fault.
Here is a tricky part:
This also means i believe this to be true economically. That one should be able to provide for society in whatever way one might want, and as frequently or infrequently as one might want, and bear whatever fruits that might bear. This principle of self determination, in an economic sense, raised the overall quality of life for Americans historically as long as it was applied.
however, the time came where the interests of government, themselves, threatened to crush the markets. Within a century we had sneaky common-law precedent, theoretically meant to end slavery, applied to give individual rights to corporations. Shortly thereafter we had a public stock market, central bank, and a removal of the gold standard of our currency. Since this day, politicians stole the term, "the market", formerly meaning the free exchange of goods by private citizens and private companies, unregulated and wild, competing fervently for your dollar with high quality services, now applied to publicly traded corporations whom had no real owner, and no accountability to anyone. They pool such excessive resources, backed by public stocks and the whims of the stock market, that no private company owned by an individual could compete. The smaller private startup capital couldn't turn over the same quantities, and therefor couldn't get the low wholesale prices, or manufacturing prices that a major publicly traded corporation could.
This lead to lawless, 10 headed companies swallowing up communities, and the steps taken to correct the problem became legislation. At this point, the Republicans, who generally tout the virtues of the "free market", now meant CORPORATISM. essentially, regulatory agencies for industries were created, opening Corporations to lobby them for things... sometimes there are funding kickbacks for being in compliance with a new law, sometimes government infrastructural needs are auctioned off, where a monopoly is created on a service being paid for by taxpayers with almost no transparency about cost. The resultant spending and nepotism towards certain corporations with a strong lobbying interest resulted in more aggressive lobbying.
This is not free market. Kickbacks or tax breaks to benefit certain corporations is a MANAGED MARKET, one found in a system of Corporatism. Free Market thought only allows contracts between individuals, and companies which are not liable for their actions are illegal.
Having headless corporations, whose only master is a random breeze of people holding stocks makes planning for long term success an impossibility. You have months to turn a profit, or maintain one if a problem occurs in your industry, if you can't make it happen fast, the bottom falls out from underneath you. Then corporate tax law favors losing money on purpose to get into lower brackets to have a better bottom line.
the market should never be restrained in a way which causes someone to become unproductive in order to accrue more wealth. This defeats the whole purpose.
The point of an unregulated market is to take advantage of the greedy and the workaholics by providing them an incentive to better society by creating more resources. When you don't provide this opportunity, these people do not do the extra work which causes prices to lower for those who don't want to do it.
The SAD THING, is that our Politicians have perverted "free market" to mean "corporatism". People believe that free market policy benefits big corporations, when, in fact, destroying the regulatory agencies that supervise them, would probably destroy the corporations also.
In fact, going to the original system before the Civil War, when the 14th Ammendment was applied to Corporations, the current idea of an entity which is not a private citizen having monopoly over an industry would be an impossible concept. it is only through twisted legislation, parading as a check and balance against big companies, which snuffs out competition from enterprising small business.
Health care is a great example of something which is hurt by over regulating, and I'll give you some examples. These will be fairly simple.
Our current healthcare system is regulated by many regulatory agencies. There are rules about who can use what medicines, where they can be acquired, who can deliver them. There are rules about who can be a doctor, nurse, surgeon, and certain types and amounts of schooling that are required to provide these services. There are rules about what procedures you are allowed to perform, and under what circumstances, where, and with whom. These types of laws are aimed at increasing the quality of care, however they all fail. There is no amount of school a doctor can attend to guarantee he wont sneeze when he has a scalpel up to your left ventricle, this is just not reality. And not allowing a doctor to, for example, intern under a doctor for years for free instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on colleges, all of whom are of suspect and varying quality, increases the cost of education for everyone in the building before you even step into the office. Oftentimes you have nurses doing almost all the procedures you might need in a year, yet you still have to pay for the doctor's entire practice, education, and business infrastructure every time you step into the office.
The current laws prevent you from buying and taking home test kits that show if you are positive to a strep infection in your throat. anyone with a high school education could do that type of procedure themselves or for their own family, and purchase antibiotics over the counter and solve that problem without the 200$+ visit and 50$-200$ antibiotic cost. This could be solved for 15$ and probably cut a few hundred thousand pointless doctor visits out of the game. This would free these rooms up for people with serious problems who need real medical attention. There could be countless examples of ways to limit cost if regulations disappeared. Under the current rules a nurse who has performed a procedure for 40 years can't open her own practice and give the procedure not under supervision of a doctor without going back for more expensive schooling, even if the doctor she's working under isn't as qualified at giving it.
Also, what if someone needed a heart surgery and couldn't afford to do it at a hospital, and a private citizen who knew how to perform it but wasn't licensed was willing to? Under current laws to have someone save this persons life would be illegal, even considering the fact that a suitable alternative could not be affordably provided. Considering that, the person may actually want to take the risk of the unlicensed surgeon rather than die, if he was pretty certain his death was imminent without the surgery in question. Bear in mind a license does not guarantee a successful surgery, many times surgeons who are licensed make very big mistakes that result in a patients death.
Government regulation does not improve the quality of a service. This is a fact. Deregulation will not stop certain incompetent individuals from making mistakes, but neither will regulation. You can float through 12 years of college listening to Phish and getting wasted on Special K, if your rich enough, then your a short residency away from going live on a patient with no knowledge other than a variety of Will Farrell movie quotations and who won the Heismann trophy the past 50 years.
Don't let lying Big Government republicans like Mitt Romney scare you away from free market power. Corporations are not the good guys in the market, private companies are. small businesses. the middle class. This is who the market works hard for.
Snip the common law precedent applying the 14th ammendment to corporations, snip the fiat monetary system and the federal reserve, get our gold standard back to our money, so it retains value, and get rid of these "regulatory agency" piggybanks for public corporations, and watch the prices drop and your quality of life soar!
Freedom is choice. Use entropy against itself for better survival.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Why the Patriot Act, Military Comissions Act, and other infringements upon my liberties are not valid per my citizenship with my state.
i urge everyone reading this to take the time to examine their STATE Bill of Rights. Per the Baron vs. the City of Baltimore judgement of 1833, you are not a citizen of the Federal government, unless you live on Federal property. Although the 14th ammendment has given you duel-citizenship where it applies to States violating the U.S. Bill of Rights, it has not been applied in reverse. This means that all laws persuant to you must come from the state jurisdiction. Essentially, this application means that the United States Bill of Rights does NOT apply to you as a state citizen except where legal precedent has come down in judgements using the 14th ammendment.
Here are the reasons why the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and such are not valid per my citizenship as a member of the Tennessee State, and my being beholden to its Bill of Rights.
ernments are founded on their authority, and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of
those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and inde-
feasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government
in such manner as they may think proper."
papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and
seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may
be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of
the act committed, to seize any person or persons not named,
whose offenses are not particularly described and supported
by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted."
his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life,
liberty or property, but by the judgement of his peers or
the law of the land.
Sec. 9. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the
right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have
a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
in prosecutions by indictment of presentment, a speedy pub-
lic trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the
crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled
to give evidence against himself."
would allow me to be held without due process of law against my will violates my
governing state Bill of Rights, making its application to me persuant to
Baron vs. the City of Baltimore, unlawful.
in the army of the United States, or militia in actual ser-
vices, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or
military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unre-
stricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose
of the person, liberties, or property of the citizen, is
inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is
not confided to any department of the government of this
to me, as it is a Military court and I as a state citizen can not be subjected to punishment via Martial Law.
encouraged via financial incentives. when federal judgements, laws, or executive
orders are passed down which you do not want to see in your life, contact your STATE legislature to have this application refused.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
-from the NY TIMES.
for those of you without a bullshit to english dictionary, this allows the executive branch (i.e. president) to take military actions against Iran per the Patriot Act/Military Comissions act War on Terror legislation instead of the proper due-process of law that is required to declare war with the consent of congress when dealing with conflicts with other sovereign nations. You are being conditioned and prepared for ANOTHER WAR. Iran. So for the 80% of people who are now dissapointed with themselves for complicitly allowing the Iraq war under our patriotic watch, which was a totally unfounded, aggressive conflict with a nation who didn't violate our territory with an attack of any kind, instead of responding to your cries by removing troops from Iraq, despite a Democrat majority in congress, you are now being primed for A NEW WAR with Iran, who has strengthened their ties with numerous other nations, such as China, Russia, most South American countries, etc.
While this war posturing is definately the fault of the neoconservative socialists, such as GEORGE BUSH, DARTH CHENEY, PAUL WOLFOWITZ, BILL KRISTOL, lets not forget our other complicit politicians who will soon have innocent Iranian blood on their hands if we do not stop them:
the new war leglislation which will enable Bush and his warhawks to blast Iran at will is the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment". This piece of legislation essentially allows the US to use military force to combat any actions anywhere in the middle east by any organization such as the Iranian military, hamas, hezbollah, Lybia's national military, etc. although most of you haven't researched the complexity of middle eastern politics well enough to understand the significance, some of those are elected political parties who lead nations, and that sketchy legislation would allow us to attack nations who are essentially doing nothing wrong.
In the political arena, most of the people who oppose this legislation oppose it because it essentially, in modern politics, amounts to a covert DECLARATION OF WAR WITH IRAN.
Joe Biden, who DID vote against this in the senate, put it in these terms.
"I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice."
“We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”
so to let you know exactly who you can blame for our war on Iran, when it happens, lets show you some of the "heroes" that voted YES on this bullshit. (let it be also known to those of you who think OBAMA is a hope for change, this pivotal piece of legislation which amounts to a declaration of war on iran, didn't seem important enough to OBAMA to be worth SHOWING UP FOR. so he didn't bother to show up and vote on that date.) and i highlighted one special crook to show their complicit acceptance of another war, similar to their votes on YES on IRAQ AND THE PATRIOT ACT.
YEAs ---76 Akaka (D-HI)
Monday, September 24, 2007
this is a quote from a speech about crime, as quoted via the New York Times
"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
which he follows with... "You have free speech so I can be heard."
my response to this:
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Before i even discuss the practical details of this, why exactly is it that we have campus law enforcement electrocuting students in states as far-reaching as California and Florida. If it happens more than once, the problem is not the students. Even if the students WERE combatant, if we have a society which drives our student population to constant violence warranting usage of electric shock to control them, what does that say about the laws they don't agree with.
now that being said, let it be known that the two most recent victims of police electro-brutality that were caught on videocamera were outnumbered, unarmed, and made no threats or motions characterizable as violent or threatening, yet were still administered torturous electric shock to coerce "compliance", one of which happened last night without a clear explanation of whether he was being arrested, detained, or really any explanation at all. If you have just asked a moderator at a town hall function a question, even if your question is undesirable, and the moderator has aknowledged your question and you are seized anyways, without explanation, it is clearly outside the scope of police authority. Public universities such as this are instutions of taxpayer money, not private property, and all the benefit of the doubt goes to the taxpayer here. the police are responsible for explaining what their purpose is in physically confronting you. I'm inferring here to Andrew Myer's vicious electrocution yesterday at a John Kerry rally in gainesville at University of Florida. This mirrors similar policy errors in UCLA earlier this year, an atrocity committed against Iranian Mostafa Tabatabainejad who failed to produce an ID card in protest to what he felt was racial profiling.
With UCLA being a public university, the fact that students are required to show at all times an ID card goes against the very foundation of what makes America safe from Tyrrany. it is reasonable to ask someone for proof of admission to the University, if they are entering a premises, and to be denied admittance without the ID card, but for police to walk around the building demanding certain politically unsavory characters(in this case chosen by racial affiliation) produce identification even when they are leaving the building is criminal. He protested this so that other students could see what the campus rule was being used to do (honestly, do they really think a senior year American student of Iranian heritage is going to commit a terror attack after 11pm in a library that probably has 45 people in it? that is not a credible assessment of risk, so please realize that before you say that you feel safer for something like that happening.)
The line of brutality is clearly crossed in both cases, as the students are held down by numbers superior to them, who are supposed to be trained law enforcement, who deal with truly violent criminals(or should at least know how to). anyone watching the videos can see with their own eye that the people do not pose a serious threat of physical harm to anyone, especially not numerous trained, armed police officers. while being held down they are electrocuted, basically as a labor saving device to make it easier to get them to put on handcuffs. maybe these handcuffs would go on a little better after they were offered some miranda rights?
regardless of what you feel about the political implications of this, if you honestly feel that someone should administer electric shock to enforce school policies in college, I don't want to share a country with you. Personally, Andrew Meyers attitude when delivering his message at the event was not effective communication in the townhall forum; however his circumstance shows how the standard operating procedure for these police is out of step with the founding fathers vision of america, and closer to that of something out of 1984. we do not allow policy of law enforcement, especially low rank, bored, university law enforcement, to undermine our constitution. Regardless of what you feel about him, obviously the law should protect the ability to speak your mind, live free, far more than it protects law enforcements ability to electrocute-first-and-explain-why-your-detaining-later. Obviously they felt keeping social order at the Kerry event, was more imortant than protecting human rights. Another true criminal in this, is Kerry, only due to his failure as a public figure. If you enter into politics, you have a responsibility to maintain social order. As this event slipped out of hand, and the police went outside of the format (notice Kerry was recognizing his questions and right to speak, and was moderating, meaning that he clearly had the floor according to the order of the event), Kerry has a responsibility, due to his promise to help the social order and defend his constituents, to prove his ability as a public figure by restoring social order and demanding that the police not brutalize his image by torturing people who visit his rallies and ask him political questions.
videos below: please be warned these are graphic and disturbing. also NOTE, neither person is under arrest, nor is the nature of his detention explained by police prior to their usage of a taser gun.
Friday, September 7, 2007
that said, let it be known, as we approach September 11, that there is a lot that has changed since this tragedy in American politics. The most significant, and unfortunate, is that our constitution is under direct threat by the executive branch of government. So much so, that Gen. Tommy Franks, who lead the US invasion of Iraq then wisely quit before the part where you use nation destroyers as nation builders kicked in, stated that a WMD attack or similar disaster on any ally of the US would likely result in suspension of constitutional government in favor of a military one.
There had been many in the past, particularly ex US Intelligence William Cooper, claiming that F.E.M.A. would be eventually used to execute Martial Law, and Katrina became de facto an exercise in this, as weapons were seized and people relocated, even training of church leaders to lull their neighborhood communities into giving up weapons and following orders.
The US Patriot act(now its ok to spy on everyone), Military Commissions Act(and torture them and hold them without trial, just if they are considered an enemy of the state), and common law overturning of Posse Comitatus act limiting the military's ability to police on US soil(martial law is now OK) are now reality in post-911 America. A REAL ID card, containing a RFID microchip has been voted into law, which you will be forced to take by the end of next year, and RFID chips are being implanted in children and medical customers willingly, at this point.
So, what are we learning here: 911 was a clearly horrible tragedy. However, are we all in such great danger to fundamentalist islam attacking us at home, that we should suspend every right afforded us in the constitution to protect us from tyrrany to one of the most unpopular administrations in the history of the U.S.? I think the answer here is obvious, we were duped. Whether 911 was an inside job, or whether the conspiracy theory promoted by the administration rings true is unproven on either side, and irrelevant. The point is, the event was used to opportunistically make a mad power-grab. This was admitted by Gary Hart one day after 911, that this event could be used to make this power-grab to promote globalist government at the CFR meeting, of which all your Washington bigwigs belong, from the Bush community, to the Clintons, Obama, and any other piece of elite trash gutting our constitution.
The fact that 911, a moderate tragedy(in terms of number of lives lost) compared to many health problems, poverty problems, and even the number of people who perished in Iraq, a war which clearly had no basis, and was another piece of the illegal power grab after 911. We are in far more danger now, than then, and not because of fundamentalist islam. We are in no danger from fundamentalist islam; the probability of you being murdered in a terrorist attack is closer to that of shark attack, drowning in a bathtub, or being struck by lightning than that of cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.
This being said. Mark my words, America is no longer fooled. Fear mongering by terrorism is over. We want our country back.
WARNING: there is one way that the we could lose sight of this reality. At the present time, in a "state of emergency", the president can essentially suspend the constitution. The media is full of government warnings of an upcoming terror attack. Lets just hope this is wild, ignorant speculation, the 911 attacks were done by al qaeda, and our homeland security works. Because, if another attack happens, we will KNOW it is NOT AL QAEDA.
Why would small, weak arab countries want to attack us in a way that causes our constitution to crumble forever, and warhawk military leaders to gain totalitarian control of the most powerful military in the history of the the universe.
To quote George Dub himself "fool me once..."
Once the constitution goes down for good, once military polices the streets, the curfew is enacted, etc. I swear to do what is asked of my by the founding fathers, and evoke the REAL protection given to me in the second amendment. and if you need someone to stand by, reach out to me. This is our responsibility, given to us by Thomas Jefferson.
hopefully proper statesmen, going the traditional legislative route will stop this garbage before it happens. the good news is theres a really solid chance this will happen. Ron Paul went into hostile territory at FOXNEWS New Hampshire debate two nights ago and made the talking head, soundbite addicted, money sluts squirm. Calling out the neocons fearmongering hijack of the FLIGHT 1776, driving us into the twin towers that are fundamentalist islam and pandering to the interests of the military industrial complex. He then won the post debate poll by a landslide. Please do your part to support candidates who are not a part of groups like the CFR; who don't participate in corporatist lobby, and who voted against things such as the US PATRIOT ACT. If Ron Paul isn't your thing, go to Project Vote Smart to view the voting histories, AND campaign contributors of each candidate. If the candidate voted YES on the US PATRIOT ACT or takes more than 3-5% of their campaign contribution for corporate lobby or PAC's, do NOT vote for them, regardless of what they say. they cannot be trusted.
lets take our civil liberties back in the voting both, so we don't have to do so by evoking the second amendment.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Us vs. them is a dead paradigm. Brave New World, Farenheit 451, and 1984 are here and passed.
December 31, 2008 you will be issued a federal REAL ID card with a RFID chip inside of it.
If you have a newer passport, you probably already have an RFID chip in that. The REAL ID card will have a number, this number will become YOUR NUMBER, if you catch my drift. Some enterprising young corporate thug will sell everyone on earth a scanner that reads this RFID chip, and a central database will store all sorts of information you might not want to share; credit history, criminal records, god knows what might happen if you get on someone's bad side.
they might just turn off your chip.
this is not a conspiracy theory, this is "Division B of an act of the United States Congress titled Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, enacted 2005-05-11"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
they're putting these RFID chips in children's bodies now, to "helpfindthemiftheyareabductedbyapredator".
there's only one predator to fear with your children.
its the kind of government that puts a CHIP IN YOUR BODY TO TRACK YOU.
if you get this chip put in you, its your own fault. you deserve what happens.
wake up, grow some balls America.
There's a book you can read that will solve this and every problem you face. It is a dusty old contract between yourselves and the government that Lysander Spooner feels was put in breach in 1861.
I agree with him.
It has a 2nd ammendment. familiarize yourself with it.
its for checks and balances, not protecting your family. if you're a patriot, you'll know where they can stick that chip when they come for you.
Monday, August 6, 2007
During the Democratic debates, the same party who campaigned on the politics of ending Bush' illegal War in Iraq, yet failed to defund it when they gained a majority, the most commonly used slogan of all these candidates was some sortof sobering, logistic reality for how long it really takes to end a military conflict police action like this. The timeframes varied from 90 days to a year and a half.
lets break this down. Lets say a politician said to you, "guys, we're ending this thing in Iraq, the military there will no longer be responsible for policing or engaging insurgents, and we have enacted a plan to bring them home A.S.A.P."
if the plan to bring them home involved flight plans, ship movement, and travel arrangements taking from 3 months to a year and a half, but they were removed from the dangerous area to a nearby safer territory, and remained there not in engagement against insurgents, would we consider the war, continuing?
of course not.
we have troops that remain in Germany, bases near Japan, and many theaters of WWII to this DAY! do we consider this a continuation of the WWII conflict? of course not. (although the sad thing is it probably is, on some level)
essentially, they know you don't really understand the physical schematics of how to move military troops around, and in a state of peace, does it really matter?
the reason why your sold this TIMELINE thing: to justify keeping them there even longer, possibly for other things.
who wants to use the military in other places?
who can you trust to fucking leave these people alone!
the mainstream Republicans(neocons) are giving you no impression its them, they will use as much as a nuclear first strike against Iran if you let them, and stay in Iraq as an occupying power until the media forgets we're there. They wouldn't mind taking a stab at Lybia, Syria, or China also. The mainstream Democrats won't take that off the table, and some of them have other wicked warmongering plots on the backburner, Joe Biden and Obama, most notably, with Obama recently calling for bullying Pakistan to do our work for us with Osama bin Ladin, or well come in there against their will. Invading our more powerful nuclear allies is like an Iraq times an Iraq; that's supposed to appeal to young voters as a Hope for Change?. And DARFUR. don't forget, when we pick sides in a "genocide"...we got another BOSNIA and KOSOVO.
Bosnia and Kosova is to Clinton and Demopublicans, as Iraq and Iran are to Bush and the Republocrats. One is the HUMAN RIGHTS flavored warmongering imperialism, the other is the ANTI TERRORIST flavored one. they both taste like ichor and human blood.
be careful with that SAVE DARFUR stuff. make sure the people behind it aren't lobbying for military intervention.
and isn't it funny that the ONLY PERSON who said what the Americans wanted to hear on the war was at the REPUBLICAN debates.
On Aug 5, at the Iowa Debates, Ron Paul dropped the bomb with what will probably be a slogan of the American Antiwar movement. When asked what he would do about iraq, he answered "Just Come Home". The plastic Ken doll mormon Mitt Romney tried to tackle him with 911 rhetoric during his antiwar message, with which Ron Paul stiffarmed him with his own 5 years of military service during Vietnam, a similar type of ordeal, and showing how good we're doing with them now after leaving there too.(Romney and Guiliani definately used shifty political moves to avoid draft eligability, so they obviously would have to back down and stay quiet, look at that as a threat to turn the issue to who actually served?)
The crazy thing is the MASSIVE cheer this message got him, at the REPUBLICAN debates.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
well, democrats, as if his vote for the Patriot Act wasn't a bad enough transgression against the American people, Obama really sticks it to us now! His claim as the antiwar presidential candidate passed away today.
When Mike Gravel asked Senator Obama who he would like to nuke, he waited a month to answer.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
When a person falls ill in America today without proper healthcare(which by the way, I am one of, most touring musicians don't have a health care plan), the first thing to blame is the market. This stems from the fact that someone somewhere out there started a vicious false rumour that we are in a free market health care system. The grisly truth is we haven't had a free market system in over 50 years. Its regulated, and by the government. The initial myth is that government regulation of health care will result in higher quality care. If our government was lead by a team of the worlds greatest doctors, then yes, this could be possible. However our government is run by career politicians, and lobbyists in the health care industry lobby for regulations that give them monopolies over services via certification, or government handouts to insurance companies to help them 'cover the poor'(or a number of other self serving interests). Well after years of corruption, now the system is so well regulated, that after I had heart failure at 16, I read my bill, and the insurance that I had at the time charged 45$ for a pair of rubber gloves and 9500$ for a doctor I never saw.
Why is this happening? Because I wasn't paying for it. Insurance companies are. Ergo I don't shop around, noone does. Of course this is a gross oversimplification of the process, and the problems, excluding a lot of jargon and technical language you might not know. There's a learning curve to it, but the jist rings true.
Socialized medicine is looked at by the 'michael moore' politics newbies as the way out. The problem here, is you don't have history of a functional government universal service lasting or being productive, it simply isn't possible. Socialism promotes slovenly work, and no advancement, as you can't earn more for harder work. In Canada this failed attempt to create universal socialized medicine created a schism between the public and private sectors. Private sector pays doctors handsomely, public not so much. This causes a mass exodus of skilled doctors to the private sector. Therefor, you get what you pay for. Public treatment? 6 month waiting list for an MRI. Private? Specialists on demand. The less skilled doctors work for less pay in the public sector, meaning that the "free" health care is riddled with errors and waiting lists.
Socialism is a long dead paradigm.
Recognizing that we are nowhere near a free market health care system is key, and that actually switching to one would even seem like a somewhat frightening and radical change. (albeit foolishly, as the outcome would be lower prices and better quality of care).
For example, creating super tough qualifications and laws as to who can perform which tasks causes an education wedge on the front end of the cost of healthcare. This can be done away with. I'm a fan of pretty hardline free market. Many of the tasks can be done by someone with just apprentice training. Do we really need someone having 26 years and 200,000$ worth of education to do stitches, bacterial tests and give influenza shots? The market deals with credentials via word of mouth and trade magazines. If someone goes to a clinic and comes out sick, word would spread fast that the clinic doesn't do the trick. This would quickly drive it out of business. You definately need highly trained specialists at emergency medical facilities or doctors offices, but paying 250$ to get a dr to do the test proving you have strep throat and give u a prescription is robbery. That's a 15$ test and 10$ prescription, the rest of that money goes to pay someones education you didn't use, that they're forced to have by regulation on who can provide what health care services.
This is but one of a myriad example of how the free market would cut costs, and this one alone would save millions
You can't cut the free market out of health care via socialism however, or you'll lose access to its incentive for advancement in medical science; its what drives men to cures.
Take a moment to get your head out of the idealism bullshit cloud that is michael mooria and give the free market a chance. Do a little research! It could save your life some day. Ron Paul or your friendy neighborhood libertarians are a good starting point in mainstream politics, and some more advanced research of free market economy can show you the more intimate underpinnings of how this can work.
It does. It did, until the government stepped in.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The fact of the matter, is the biggest perpetrators of Misandry, are men. Men are embarrassed and ashamed of masculinity, and hate men and being a man.
Women only echo it because we say it first.
Quit whining and fall back in love with your cock.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
The biggest problem in this debate, is that politicizing it has caused the two sides to argue about completely different things.
On one side, pro-life, the very name, implies that people who are on this side are for the protection of life. Some people under this banner have committed terror attacks that have ended lives. Also, for them to make the debate so pronouncedly about the protection of life, they immediately alienate a certain humongous population. People who have had abortions. I'll get to this later. Essentially, this requires that everyone who is not on their side be labeled anti-life. Intentionally divisive moves like that, although attempting to show their side of the debate, alienate the opposite side. Obviously noone who is pro-choice considers themselves pro-death or anti life.
On the other side, pro-choice, implies that the whole debate is about civil liberties. This, too, is intentionally divisive and misleading. Obviously people who are pro-life are not anti-civil liberties. They don't see abortion as a civil liberties restriction, and assuming that if they get their way they are going to continue to pursue more reduction of civil liberty is just spin and totally imflammatory.
Now onto point one, and the facts about how civil liberties debate is affected by abortion. It is difficult to find good studies and facts about the abortion debate, as most are funded by two sides who are not trying to find a fair analysis, they are just trying to prove their own points. There are more civil liberties implications than most people know about this. One, this one is often the point of someone who is concerned about euthanasia and the death penalty. People who have little trust for government or social killing in any case, fear that when you are considering authorizing deaths caused by a person, that it is a sliding scale down which some really heinous atrocities have occurred in past societies. One, scientists and studies that have attempted to prove the beginning point of life being after a point at which a common pregnancy test can become positive (which generally takes a good couple weeks for an affordable and reliable test to give you that outcome) are not at a consensus. That means, that there are people on both sides of the debate, so it can not be stated that it is the ACCEPTED CONSENSUS that human life begins at birth. It can only be taken as a theory. Both sides have many different points at which they feel that life starts, being it two weeks into pregnancy, the third trimester, or whatever, but there is absolutely no consensus to this. Therefor basing legislation on that kind of science at this point is a bit too hasty. There is more research to be done. Obviously, there are points in a pregnancy, where if you watch an ultrasound video of an abortion being done, where the fetus is desperately avoiding the vacuum tube and moving wildly when it penetrates the surface, this is something that is not necessarily widely known, but easily viewable online or what have you. With facts on both sides, and a variety of takes on the issue, it is divisive. People who fear government allowance of deaths, euthanasia, or death penalties, are people who fear that sometimes people will die in a form of injustice, and that this should not be a power of government, as one bad apple (unjust death) spoils the whole damned bunch(makes the government into a murderer). The problem with arguing over what is, or what isn't humanity, and then offering a penalty of death to whatever isn't considered humanity, is that down the line, 100 years for now, this piece of common law could be used to sentence senior citizens to death. People on the opposing side of this debate generally don't feel this type of governmental injustice isn't realistic, but to be honest, stranger things have happened. (Look at Nazi Germany or the Roman empire to see government sponsored euthanasia campaigns authorized by citizens just like me or you unknowingly). This type of debate could start saying that, well, if a certain quality of life is what we decide is humanity, then some things we consider alive now, may someday not be considered alive by the same argument.
on the more pro-choice aspect of it, there is a fear that if government steps in on a womans reproductive issues, that this could slide further. Next thing you know women who are victims of rape, or to whom a tubular pregnancy might cause death, would be forced to bear children of rapes or through damaged reproductive organs. This one i have to say is the victim of heavy spin, as legalizing abortion itself, which is not the right of women to do anything to their bodies, it is the right for doctors to go into a womans body and terminate a pregnancy, seems to be a bit of a crazy solution. If pro-choice is a proper label, and if civil liberties are the issue, then it would make sense that the community would put more effort into funding research to transfer fetuses from an unwanted host to a wanted host, or to author legislation that allowed rape victims or women who are at risk for a tubular pregnancy to seek abortion. However, the abortion statistics aren't consistent with this kind of use, they are more consistent with use for post coital birth control. If the Pro-choice contingency argued that they think its important that post coital birth control be protected via abortion, it is possible quite a lot of people would reevaluate their acceptance of that label. If pro-choice can't begin to support legislation that specifically prevents this type of birth control usage of abortion, then they will NEVER get the pro-lifers to believe the rhetoric that they look at this as an issue that civil liberties effort. If civil liberties advocacy on the behalf of the fetus is accepted by pro-choice, then a REAL future which involved reevaluating abortion as a viable option to prevent womens deaths or carrying babies to term via rape, then there could be a solution that both sides could live with. But the bottom line is 20-30% of pregnancies are being aborted these days, and there are not rape statistics, or death statistics for women carrying out pregnancies that come within 1% of those cases. that is spin.
Pro-life wants to call women who abort babies murderers. However, there is little sensible education to women these days to make them believe that this accepted medical practice is a murder. Generally, they are told its a bundle of cells, its a totally healthy procedure, and the only downside is a slight possibility of Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. They go to a doctors office, the same type of office that they are told from birth will extend their lifespan, and the action is done under some degree of anaesthesia, and essentially they are doing nothing themselves other than having coitus, signing forms, and being on drugs and taking a nap. Anyone who calls a person who does this a murderer, is obviously not concerned with solving this debate, or slowing down the rate of abortion. You want to know why? Because 1 out of every 2.5 women now has an abortion by age 50. This means a massive percentage of the people they want to convince, are going to have to face the fact that they are a murderer, forever.
Calling the abortionists murderers also doesn't do much for their argument. These are medical professionals, and the world they live in is arm deep in blood and gore. Its a very tricky and confusing world to understand what is or isn't supporting or promoting life or death, because its all mind-numbingly gross if your not in that field. These people take life into their hands regularly, and are making the best judgement they can considering what studies are available, and many studies abortionists are given show statistics about how many illegal abortions are performed, and how great the health benefits are. (although, to be fair, these are not provided by unbiased sources, as this is a contentious part of the debate also). The most important thing, is they are upholding the law, and the standards of the health care the community wants. You can't just call that person a murderer. If you want to call the legislation murderous, then you can make that allegation without hurting anyones feelings and make your points from there, but the current procedure of attacking people for a piece of legislation they don't understand is unfair and alienating.
some day.. ill explain my beliefs on this issue, and show some stats and facts that most people don't know about that pertain to this debate. but not until both sides show they care one way or the other who wins, and stop smearing people for having certain beliefs.
the bottom line: pro choicers do not believe that they advocate death, and pro lifers are not ignorant rednecks who want to control women's wombs from afar.
this is much more complex of a debate than the spin scam will make you think.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
In the end you leave undergrad school with no real skills and the companies know it. A 'music business' or 'marketing' degree gets you a glorified data entry position(technically in the field, much in the same way that working at a Borders call center makes you an author) paying 20k-30k a year if your really lucky, and someone who dropped out of high school and interned or knew someone is your supervisor. All this in exchange for what can be as much as 100k in loans for even bullshit schools with no real reputation or entry requirements.
Even better! You can take most of it online! The college knows online courses don't require you learn anything or do any real work, they don't care. Its universally accepted adult daycare now and graduate school is the real college.
All this for what can be a hundred grand! The amount of money that an average college grad on the books gets more than a hs grad is like 10k or so, so after 10 years you break even!
And that's considering the 'not graduated college' stat doesn't include only career minded people, it includes statistical outliers that fuck up the value of the stat such as meth addicts, career criminals and waiters and bartenders who don't report the 30k they probably make a year accurately to duck out of taxes.
If you take that into consideration, there's no real evidence that a career-minded person benefits financially from attending college! offering free labor as an intern right out of high school, if you're committed to it, will often offer you free tuition, or free education hands-on in the field you want, which also counts as experience, and gets you ACTUAL contacts in the field. 4 years later you are working for a higher salary than the inexperienced college grad in the mail-room, who nowadays may just get frustrated in 6 months, feeling like college was supposed to be his/her "due's paying" time, and that this hopeless situation is unresolvable, driving him/her to a job waiting tables or selling cars.
all this for 100 grand!
there are always of course college graduates who buckle down and make the experience worth while, but the watering down of the university system, its desire to appeal to a broad universal base, has made its average value meaningless in the job market, and at a balooning cost that isn't self-sustainable.
so for those of you in college cruising by right now, drop out and beg for an internship in the field, or put your money where your mouth is and tour with Widespread Panic. (if its such a fuckin religious experience)
special note: if purportedly psychadelic music requires psychotropic drugs to cause introspective analysis or psychadelic feeling, its not really psychadelic. in short, if you need to smoke a blunt and eat shrooms to enjoy a band, it sucks ass.
Friday, June 8, 2007
first of all. War. america has open declared War on the concepts of Terror and Drugs. This was a clever move by the neocons as then they can use Military Commissions to consider nearly any human alive who seem Terrifying or does Drugs as an enemy combatant and can hold them without due process and lots of other things like waterboard them or hook their dickheads up to an ceiling fan or whatever. Essentially, all political arguments now are designed to grab an emotion and twist it away from the logic of the argument.
for example, neocons are pushing for open borders in the US, things that make illegal immigration something that qualifies in some cases for US aid, or gives you a fast track to citizenship. This is NOT in sympathy to those who have come here illegally and therefore dont have access to some of the benefits of society. This IS a slow cultural expansion of the borders of the area they control to include canada and mexico. This is a economic takeover of North America, not by the US, but by the neocons and the corporations they represent. They dont introduce this bill as a UNITE NORTH AMERICA bill because they know that that cancels out all their arguments about NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY and PATRIOTISM. essentially, they want you to feel that you are CARING and HELPFUL to introduce the bill, not IMPERIALIST and DOMINATING, which is what this is. dont doubt it.
the war. there are two types of people when it comes to war. a. irresponsibly unreasonable people who believe war should never happen and is avoidable. and b. irresponsably unreasonable people who believe wars are fought because they are right or for a reason that is morally appropriate and need to happen. the fucked up part is each and every one of us is one of these 2 at different points in our life, this is proven by polling during times like after 911 or at times like right now. Some of you treehugging latte sipping dot commers at the peace rally had an american flag on their car and furiously demanded a military action of some sort against someone, whoever we could think of after 911 and you know it. but the reality of it is war always exists, and must, and will find a reason to exist, emotionally based at various places and times in human sociality. a refusal to have a strong military will make your nation unsafe . so in a sense he Neocons love to use the fact that we have military power as a way to show that they are working for your safety by fighting for various goals, such as reducing "terror". however terror is not a possible thing to reduce or fight. True national safety is to have the most powerful military on earth, and not use it. if someone sets foot on your country, as an agent of a national sovereign nation, and commits an act of violence, you respond with a very clear show of force.
HOWEVER, when an agent of a public interest group(al qaeda or something) attacks, this is not an act of war, this is a CRIME, which falls under the responsibility of POLICE or SECURITY AGENTS and not HOMELAND SECURITY, that is by NO MEANS a police force or security force, haha, that is an OCCUPATIONAL FORCE by the NEOCON party.
ok, so for getting out of war in Iraq, theres guys who say, "hey! we can't leave! thats losing! losing sends the wrong message"
ok, thats retarded logic, the only reason were losing something is because someone is claiming we are trying to fight a real war against ideals. here is an example of an arguement to contradict that
"our troops have completed their missions: the liberation of iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the
provision of security for the January 30, 2005 elections. American military personnel should be
commended for accomplishing these difficult tasks and performing them in a courageous and selfless manner.
we cannot continue to keep our servicement and women committed to an open-ended, violent conflict in Iraq" -from shane corey of the Libertarian party's iraq exit strategy plan
so when the redneck dude says we can't leave iraq because losing is the wrong message, rather than insulting him, or something you can use this argument to suggest getting out. this makes you sound like your not unreasonably arguing that war should never exist, or something that diminishes the credibility of your argument to leave iraqi occupation behind. bear in mind most people who wanted the war in the first place were fooled into thinking there was a serious international threat by Saddam Hussein to use nuclear weapons against us... they dont have the ability to go back in time and realize that. (btw, BUSH's neocon cronies are using this same argument, but dont believe them, they read LEO STRAUSS who promotes and advocates using false flag events to spurn america into war, this isn't conspiracy theory horseshit, read your history books about the SPANISH AMERICAN WAR)
now to argue why it was wrong to go to iraq in the first place....... save that one for when it applies, when the neocons try to urge us to attack IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA, and then CHINA, probably in that order.
remind them the cost in money, human life, and international opinion of the US when we do imperial actions.
what were doing in IRAQ right now is occupation, not a war, and a costly, pointless, useless occupation as far as to the US opinion. Im sure the neocons have some TROTSKY based use for it however they're not telling us about...
Saturday, June 2, 2007
for example. right now, probably the #1 hottest political issue, that speaks to the hearts of the American people is getting the fuck out of Iraq. staying the fuck out if Iran. The reason why we may not get out of it, is because we dont understand why we're there, and who out there is trying to get us out.
for example, most Americans do not realize that the CIA and certain political interest groups in America, have been spinning our heads into wars that dont affect us directly as far back as the Spanish-American War. We use sanctions to push someone into a symbolic attack, and sometimes even have used the League of Nations and the UN's peacekeeping sanctions as an excuse to "contribute" forces to a "conflict" which pretty much benefits American political interest. These are pretty much all undeclared, illegal wars, and its a loophole that has fed a military-industrial complex which pits economic and financial gain against peaceable relations.
America was an ISOLATIONIST country when we grew to be the financial, scientific, and intellectual leaders of the world. Ever since we gave this up, we have slowly deteriorated into what is becoming a totalitarian LEFTIST regime, lead by the thinking of LEO STRAUSS and TROTSKY, via the "conservative" NEOCONSERVATIVE party(republican after 1994), and their PR team called the DEMOCRATIC party, who simply whines about the NEOCONSERVATIVES being wrong, but saying that their mistakes have already been made and continuing to carry out their world policing and huge government socialist policies is "inevitable".
So when your choices are to vote for a leadership that is an imperialist power, who wants to meddle in your everyday life, and the everyday lives of everyone in the world, or to vote for a party that dislikes the fact that we have to do that, but still feels we have to, do you really have a choice?
heres how they get you. confusing humanist values, and religious special interests are there to blind you from who fights for this cause.
for example. I'll give you 3 politically active people who support isolationism. Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and, yes, PAT BUCHANON. Mike Gravel is essentially a green party type guy who snuck in the democratic party, ron paul a libertarian(classic "small government conservative") who snuck in the republican(communist) party, and Pat Buchanon is quite possibly the most unflinching and defiant voice for the Christian Right coming from a Roman Catholic background. While i myself am not into organized religion, or having an organized religion focus, he DOES speak for that group of peoples interest, and based on principles he believes in, so much so that he left the Republican party over their INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy, which, as a Christian who believes in peace and nonviolence, he does not agree with.
Pat Buchanon's magazine the American Conservative(a small-government leaning conservative magazine, quite the opposite ideology of the NEOCONSERVATIVE Bush administration) had a quote on its cover that speaks to this, what is on the hearts of most Americans:
"In dealing with past evils and threats... we have won not by waging preemptive war for 'regime change' but by deterring opponents from aggression and relying on outliving them, proving the superiority of our own system, and ultimately inducing peaceful change"
where they trick you is liberal and conservative definition. You are being told that democrats are liberals, and republicans are conservatives. If you watch fox news and cnbc, and rely on this for political commentary, you will see republicans are hard-nosed tough guys who "dont put up with those crazy arabs" and democrats as caring environmentalists who want to have a universal love in with homosexual weddings and genderless, raceless pronomial titles for all!
essentially this is all horseshit. If you've read advanced political commentary, and are familiar with terms like neoconservative, paleoconservative, know the tenets of the green party, the history of american interventionist regime change CIA tactics in south america, the middle east, the history of the Israel/palestine conflict, prohibition, are aware of the amount of money each congressional candidate receives from lobbyists or public interest groups each year, you have a better chance of understanding the American political machine. first off, conservative is such a badly smeared term in this country, that it no longer has meaning. Our "conservatives" in the white house are an EXTREME LEFTIST group, so extreme that they bring to mind the policies and views of Stalin, though their Trostkian background would be in great opposition to Stalin, they have accidentally descended into this. They believe their leadership will bring freedom to the world, and that we have to crush all their governments to "force democracy" (funny, bc America was never even designed as, is not, and will never be a DEMOCRACY, democracy is directly voting on every issue by every citizen, we have elected representatives, which is a REPUBLIC) on them.
Here, DEMOCRACY is essentially our PROPOGANDA term, it is the CAPTAIN AMERICA of political terms, a nonexistant cartoon character who punched Adolph Hitler in the face, and is now very dead, and killed by the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
you can quote me on that shit.
bottom line. if you want out of the war in iraq, you need to do research on whose getting you out. The mormon, hillary and obama aint gonna do it.