Today's Dangerous Truth

In the Interest of Consolidation

2008-12-31T00:48:00.001-08:00

I will allow this blog to continue to be the central hub of all of my various writings, whether sociopolitical, cultural, poetic, lyrical, or whatever.

This will be the center of all the truths in my world.

for backlogged recent stuff I've done:

thegauntlet.com election year editorials:
Worse Than The Great Depression
A Foreign Policy of CHANGE
The Economics of CHANGE
Obama's Mandatory Boot Camp Plan
The Administration of CHANGE
The Good News
Things You Should Know Before You Vote for President
Iraq Vets Injured by Police in Peaceful Protest
Senate Election Cheat Sheet
Constitution Attacked!
America Unites to Slay the Monster Bank
Socialism in America
Pump Prices a Sign of a Coming Great Depression II?
Jesse Ventura for President in 2012?
Internal Strife... Republican National Convention
Joe Biden, The Corporatist Warmonger
Riots at the DNC
Why is Marijuana Illegal
Rally for the Republic
Considering Barack Obama's "Citizen of the World" speech
War with Iran
The Crooked Federal Reserve
The Fourth Turning
FEMA - Iowa Floods
Politics as Usual
Filesharing Will Save the Music Industry
War Veterans: The Overlooked Demographic
An Open Letter to Jello Biafra
Riots
Would US Aid Really Benefit the People of Burma?
If America Had the Defensive Foreign Policy of Switzerland...
Why the May 2nd Gas Strike is the Stupidest Idea of All Time
Homeland Security Declares War on You
The Monopoly over the Corporate Media Will Die Soon
If the GOP Snubs Ron Paul
How Public School is Used to Dumb Down...
Why You Should Buy a Gun
It's the Economy, Stupid
2008: The "Change" Election

Thefreedomrevolution.com articles:

Congratulations, Liberty Lover
The Myth of Deregulation
Inflation vs. Deflation: A Practical Examination
Community Organizer vs. Community Liberator
Bailout Silver Lining
While They Fret About the President

M. Barry Donegan vs. Bob Corker

2008-03-05T21:48:00.000-08:00

I wrote Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, my home state regarding S.2433 or The Global Poverty Tax of 2007. This piece of legislation would impose a tax on American's which would be used to solve health care and financial problems in other nations, despite the fact that this wealth would be transferred from people who are having health care and financial problems of their own at home. I sent him an email to urge him to vote NO on this. Considering he's a Republican, and that's about as foolishly well intentioned as any bleeding heart globalist socialist bill, I thought his NO vote would be a NO BRAINER! Boy was I wrong. I told him I felt that allowing the world to impose a tax on the U.S. to deal with other nations poverty problems was a threat to our autonomy as a nation. Listen to what this senator said in response.

"

Dear Mr. Donegan,

Thank you for contacting my office to share your concerns regarding
S.2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007. Your input is important to me,
and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

As you may know, the Global Poverty Act of 2007 directs the President,
through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy to further the Millennium Development goal and U.S. foreign
policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty and
reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015,
who live on less than $1 per day. The Secretary of State would also
designate a coordinator who would oversee and draft progress reports on
behalf of the President concerning the implementation of this strategy.

Like you, I agree that it is important to protect the sovereignty of our
country. We as Americans have been blessed with so many freedoms and
opportunities, and I can assure you that I will never vote for a measure
that would jeopardize our autonomy. That said, I believe that our 
security is directly related to the economic security of countries 
around the world. If people have access to medical care, food, and jobs 
they will be less likely to turn to terrorism and other destructive 
habits. As I continue to serve in the United States Senate, I will work
to see that we are properly supporting those who are less fortunate, but
that we are also preserving the rights of the U.S. in our decision
making. Should S.2433 be brought before the full Senate for a vote, I
will certainly take into consideration your concerns.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your
thoughts with me over the course of my term.

Sincerely,

Bob Corker
United States Senator"

so let me translate that into English for you.  Bob Corker supports a tax on
Americans for the benefit of global poverty despite having an economic crisis at home.
He finds it to be an ANTITERRORISM bill somehow.

neocons, man...

BACK IN THE USSR!

The Destructive Significance of Personhood

2008-03-05T06:42:00.000-08:00

It was in a Libertarian Party of Metropolitan/Davidson County caucus to ratify a set of by-laws for the organization when we ran into this problem. In the establishment of the intent of the party, the initial articles, language was being used to essentially show that the main goal of the party was to protect the liberties of individuals from the tyranny of the state. This is a somewhat obvious goal, as obvious as it was during the drafting of the founding documents of the Republican form of the United States of America. However, it became clear that the original wording left itself open to gaming by legal loophole acrobatics after the fact.
This was due to the choice of defining the rights as applying to the “person”. It is in this complex little word, perfectly acceptable in our current “politically correct” environment, that the utmost corruption and tyranny is possible. It is game-able in the sense that, to the average man or woman, the term seems to mean “natural human being”; to it’s credit that is one of the possible meanings of the term.
Here are some sample texts on the meaning of the word person.

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

It is accepted practice that this loose definition of the term is meant to include public corporations, and some precedent exists in either legal code or court precedent to say that the definition includes the state, and the United States as well!

From RCW(revised code of washington) 1.16.080 definiton of person (1) The term "person" may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.

(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms "association," "unincorporated association," and "person, firm, or corporation" or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.

Worry not, we found the solution to our legal snafu, and we decided on a more sensitive wording for this wording. The specific original, potentially problematic text in our by-laws read:

“Each person possesses the inalienable right to life, liberty, and justly acquired property.” This was followed by “No person or institution, public or private, has the right to use physical force against a person except when in defense of life, liberty, or justly acquired property.”

The problem this gave us was this; what if the person was interpreted as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Let’s just say they passed laws which were in violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court upheld them as fair. Let’s say this law transferred property from you to the state. Here would be a case where you, in defense of your liberty, would be violating the by-laws technically, if you used force against the state to protect yourself from tyranny.

This lead us to change the articles, removing the word person in favor of the definition man or woman. As informal as this language may seem, this removes the power of theoretic personhood from possessing these inalienable rights. We also added to “justly acquired property” the addendum “belonging to a man or woman” The intention here was to indicate private property beholden to a literal physical human being, and liable to that person.

I think one can easily see how the personhood of the corporation found in common-law interpretation of the 14th amendment clearly allowed for a covert transfer of the private property of the middle class to a combination of a small group of elites and the state, and that this definition occurred quite knowingly. It is, in fact, the one thing that prevents us from having a small-business based, competition economy with the low prices and creative power of freedom. It is from here that I move that we change this language wherever applicable in law, contracts, constitutions, etc. There needs be no sharing of definition between the state and man itself, when limitation of government is concerned. Obviously one cannot limit the other while both being identically defined; any action to enforce the power of the individual would be in dissonance with the language used.

Let us use man or woman to mean “male or female living human being”, let us use other, clearer terms for the state and public corporations.

why punks should support the second ammendment

2008-02-28T15:59:00.001-08:00

Often times people make decisions based on the goodness in their heart. They want solutions that lead towards their ideal world. This is a pure, and beautiful intention. However, the real world is not easy, its a very hard life. Things happen which are unfortunate, and sometimes to good people.

This is something we know. Our founders preserved our right to bear arms in hopes that when the government became persecutive, an armed populace would serve as a deterrant against severe actions of tyranny. They never understood how powerful our Federal Military might one day become, and how effectively that organizations like the FBI, COINTELPRO, and HOMELAND SECURITY could eliminate our ability to organize a militia. Our representative republic only works as a system of checks and balances, and the local militia is a check and balance against police and military corruption. Day-by-Day we let the progressives in the media and the big government camp take away these rights from us, claiming that they make us less safe.

When you take away weapons rights from law abiding citizens, that means the only people who will carry a weapon are people who do not mind violating the law. The idea that someone will not kill a police officer or your daughter or son because the weapon he would be using is considered contraband is a logical fallacy. Murder is illegal, and a far more serious violation, so for them to illegally acquire a gun is by no means a deterrant from them committing the crime. In fact, it transfers wealth from a private gun manufacturer, who makes safe and effective guns, to a black market, who charges a higher markup, and uses this money to build a criminal enterprise, including gangs, who may well kill your children with a stray bullet in a shooting or a robbery.

The Center for Disease Control did a study on the effectiveness of gun regulations on reducing death by gun accident, crime, suicide, and any other health risk associated with firearms usage and found that it had no sufficient relationship with an increase in safety.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

You may reference that study there yourself. The CDC is one of my favorite resources for determining things like the rate of spread of infectious disease and I think they would be a more effective enterprise if they could operate privately and receive funding for their reports from the medical community! I would even sign up for a monthly fee to read their reports, because it is a great resource.

However, I digress, most Republican bobblehead types, the ones that get elected and stand for less than the "fringe" ones that actually stand for conservative type issues, defend gun rights for hunters. Organizations like the National Rifle Association compromise with New Dealers and big government Statists left and right to take away our right to cast off wicked government and be a first line of defense against violent crime. Did you know they recently passed a law that if an Iraq War Veteran comes home from the war with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, he is no longer allowed his constitutional right to bear arms? What an insult to someone who served our nation, and sacrificed his life, and probably a limb or two to ensure our ability to walk around in a safe and free street.

Now if a crook sneaks into his home into the dead of the night, he can't even legally own a firearm to defend himself. He must instead rely on big government to protect him, the same one that somehow blew truckloads of money on Katrina yet left the place in a total shambles.

Mike Huckabee would tell you that gun control is about a man's right to hunt a deer. This is wrong. This attitude is an attitude of compromise. The right to bear arms is there to cast off wicked government, to deter military occupation, to help in an invasion on our soil by a foreign nation, and to act as a first line of defense against crime. The 10 minute to an hour response time of the local police is not sufficient to defend your family from a murderer, but the 600 feet per second response time of a bullet definately is.

Notice that all the school shootings and other major mass murder events happen at places where guns are prohibited? Murderers love the monopoly on firearms that Big Government Statists offer them... and the Statists love the shooting events. It allows them to tear at your heart strings and get you to vote for more gun legislation.

Let's be realistic, is the problem at Virginia Tech that there was 1 gun there that shouldn't have been there? or was the true problem that there were 62 guns that were NOT there. How could one man fight an entire school building full of people, killing half and injuring most all by himself? Only because he had a monopoly on the weapon involved.

Don't let the statists take away the one thing that keeps a Military Occupation in America off the table.

It is your right, and your responsibility to protect this right, both in your State and Federal Constitution.

The Future of Music Consumption -- How you will get your Jams a year or two from now

2008-02-26T15:23:00.001-08:00

This is the all defining document regarding the future of music media.

I mean that in total seriousness. If you are in the business of music or are a fan of music, and fail to understand the predictions I'm about to bring to light, you will be left in the dust.

Ladies and gentleman, now that Best Buy and Wal-Mart have cut their shelf space by 60%, the compact disc has passed away. We need to give it a funeral, so people will stop talking about them, and bands will get the memo and stop signing away their licensing rights to record labels in exchange for a loan which is smaller than a car loan only to ship between 300-5000 copies of their CD to stores, making it one of the least popular items at their merch bin behind their side print shirt of an exploding heart hand grenade.

its over. the record industry based on physical media is over. at least as the central avenue of revenue it is... and boy is that exciting for an artist and libertarian like myself! That a. ends the corporate strangehold on our dollars, and b. means we can redesign how money flows in music.

HERES THE NEW FUTURE:

I have a friend from a prominent banking family(who I will not name here). His family is one which is so rich and tied into the finances of the world that they don't like to flaunt their name around in public life, and, being my friend, I will respect that. I happen to disagree with him very much politically on a lot of things, myself being a non-interventionist libertarian and he is a globalist in fan of a global union, but, i digress. He talks about an IMPENDING NEW TECHNOLOGY that all the financiers are investing in right now.

This technology is GOOD NEWS for music fans. It is called WiMAX. Follow the link for the tech jargon on this stuff to see what it is. For layman's terms it is a broadband micro-wave wireless internet connection which can be received anywhere in a miles-and-miles radius from the tower. All the money men are desperately scrambling to get these towers up and the funding is already there. Rural governments are matching funds with them in order to get this super high speed internet to areas where traditional cable and satellite methods are ineffective. This will accomplish several things:

1. bring the internet to rural communities, meaning more people stealing our music(HELL YEAH!)

2. the speed that the towers can transmit, especially close to the tower, is wildly faster than any current technology can receive it

Essentially, this will create de facto worldwide access to an internet with speeds that make the speed from your CD to your headphones look like a snail.

What does this for mean for music? Last.FM and Myspace have entered into deals with all the majors to license their music for free for streaming play. All of it. I'm sure they are paid some licensing fee. Indie artists can sign up for the programs too, and when your song is streamed, you are paid a portion of the ad revenue, which, although small, ads up very quickly. My own band has over half a million plays on myspace alone... so this is insignificant with the current technology, BUT...

Imagine if someone created a streaming device that read the signal from WiMAX towers, at a faster rate than 128kbps. That is the common resolution for most of those stolen .mp3s you guys are jamming on your ipod to save space for more songs. Imagine if the device could log on to myspace or Last.FM and just literally stream any song that existed immediately over the air at a better quality than you could save it on your harddrive. You paid a small fee per month for service to the company which carried all the music. Indie artists could upload the songs themselves and you could hear them that very day. Every time you played a song, it would report back to the service and give the band of your choice an ad revenue share, something probably like .01 cents.

Now, if everyone were using these devices, which would be hot as fire for how cool they are, then every single play of every single song everywhere in the world would be ad supported and then would fairly pay the artists who put them out. You would no longer need a label to publish your songs or collect payment.

The only thing that is stopping this from happening is a tiny leap in technology, which, I guarantee, will happen whether someone takes charge of it or not. The WiMAX towers are going up, I've overheard the phone calls between investors. The BIG MONEY people who can swallow governments and eat the corporate record labels for breakfast are talking about six month timetables for some of these to go up. This creates a vacuum of technology for the first developer to come up with a streaming device which can stream over the air music at a better quality than an .mp3. Whoever creates this device first becomes a millionaire. I hope that millionaire graduates from MIT or whatever really quickly because I NEED this transition to earn the money from all the European LWID fans who can't buy our record because its not available in stores.

I need a way for our fans to support us, just by jamming our tunes. What an awesome world for an independant band if this technology hurries up and happens.

But mark my words, it is happening. These towers are going to be everywhere, everyone will be on the net, and the device to read it and shift from digital download to streaming play will be the FUTURE OF MUSIC. There's too many millionaires to be made off of this for it to not occur. So bands, be prepared, start giving away more music for free, let fans stream everything you've got. the more used to this they are, the better your stats will be when the transition occurs and the more viable you will be.

The music industry is built off of a bad model right now and is dying, we are in a "correction period". The Golden Age will come when these towers are built. Prepare ahead, do not sign record contracts that give away your rights to these types of plays in a royalty sense. Demand that the contracts treat streaming play ad revenue as a partnership, so that you can see the money from them.

Powers which are not enforced, do not exist

2008-02-17T13:39:00.001-08:00

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner of Toledo, OH recently denied the Marines access to using his city for wargames. While I will say with all confidence that a strong defensive military needs to have a sound understand of all types of combat, including urban combat, and that reasonable efforts to train them in such skill is of high importance, in this case Finkbeiner's actions were a neccessary assertion of the power of a state governed mayor to deny federal military authority over his city.

While it is generally understood, falsely so, that in America every individual is a sovereign and the elected officials are simply citizen representatives, there lives a more complex reality behind the organization of authority in American politics. The significance of this particular event is that we have reached a new age where the Military feels that urban training exercises in American cities is a valuable and necessary activity. Despite having a budget which is in excess of any industry in the history of mankind, which could build the most technologically advanced training facilities, they still chose to do this in a live American city. The mayor felt that this would be inappropriate and told the Marines to leave. The significance here is that the Marines left. It is through their leaving that Finkbeiner retained the authority to remove the Federal Military from his city.

On the one hand, though Finkbeiner was lambasted in the Media, with a similar line of reasoning as "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops", he stood up for an authority and a power which he believed lied in his constituency, based in constitutional design, and by the submission of the Federal Marines to his command, he assumed this power for his constituents. It is for this reason that he is a patriot to the people of his city. Had he not stood up for this power, the Federal authority would have been able to use it as case precedent that this sort of thing is acceptable. The Marines probably have the military might to command that the city allow their wargames regardless, and if enough cities allowed it over time, a dissentor in the future might be facing full executive challenge to his sovereignty, beginning with legal action and possibly ending with military action.

The reason for this, is the nature of authority. It is falsely believed that authority is found in the defining document, the constitution, in America. In reality, it is international law, through a complex system of treaties, relationship, and military conquest that the division of power exists in civilized society. Although much of our current government exists in direct violation of the constitution of the United States and its pursuant State constitutions, the violations themselves are legal, have the backing of the United States Military Generals, the executor and his branch of subjects including the law enforcement authorities of the states of the United States. While the militia is the Constitutional check and balance against the executive military, the militias of the states or interests of the citizen-sovereigns were defeated, most notably in the Civil War, but in many other cases as well. One could argue that cases such as Waco also prove victories of the Federal Military against the militia of citizen-sovereigns. As per international law and recognition of state authority, these defeats and the submission of the citizen-sovereigns to the rule of the new law thereafter create new treaties which supercede the Constitution of the United States as legal authority. Although the new governments caused by these coups grants some recognition to Civil Rights found in the consitution, it overturns the concept of Natural Rights which are demonstrated in the constitution.

The shift from the usage of the concept of Natural Rights to the usage of the term Civil Rights only further submits to the will of the new governments, to whom the Constitution is an ideal, not the rule of law. This means that you now get your rights from the government, and that these rights can be taken away. Natural Rights mean that your rights are given from your creator, and that no man can take these from you.

Considering that you at one time had a Natural Right extended from the Constitution, under Constitutional rule, let's take a look at how that has changed. It is clear that no citizen of the United States is a citizen sovereign. You cannot afford a private military or weaponry to defend a claim that you own land. If you choose to purchase land and then refuse to pay taxes, you will have your property taken from you. You do not have the power to hold the land and live in peace in a way that others would recognize as sovereign. You do not have the right in America to choose what products you will buy, or what you will ingest into your body. There are a vast array of products which, upon purchasing, you can have your life and liberty seized from you and you can be placed in an increasingly private jail system. Since the gross majority of crimes which would incarcerate a citizen of the United States are ones which do not cause harm to a third party, it is not being done on the behalf of the citizen-sovereigns of the United States or the individual States. It is being done on the authority of the executor of the Federal Government or the executor of the state government at the expense of the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the citizen-sovereign. This, on a singular event, is a declaration of War between the government of the United States and the citizen-sovereign which is recognized by the Founding Father's and their documents concerning the design of our Republic.

When a citizen-sovereign submits to an executive authority, allows himself to be placed in prison for such a crime by force or threat of violence, he has lost a war. His imprisonment is the terms of the treaty. When the community around him allows it to happen, they have either sided with the non-Constitutional authority of Civil Rights and State power, or at best, decided to remain neutral to shirk off the responsibility to protect these rights for other citizen-sovereigns. In a microcosmic way, they have granted the same authority to the State concerning themselves in the future. Since they did not protest or take arms against the State for the crime committed, they have given away this power to the state in regards to their own right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

There exists a truth in saying that one cannot bring a Constitution or book of laws into a court to his defense. Once you have entered into a court, and submitted yourself to its authority to render judgement on a matter, you have de facto given away the power to resolve the issue to the judiciary in question, and he can chose to rule however he likes.

Ultimately, there has not been a successful military challenge by a state or citizen militia to the power of the State in U.S. History. This means that, in accordance with International Law, there is no guarantee of Constitutional protections in our government. It is only through popular election of people who recognize the authority of this document that we can hand back the power to the people. As of right now it is a tiny minority who believe in Republican government in American politics, so to refer to our system of government as "Republican" or "Democratic" is in ideal alone.

There exists a famous quote, "we have four boxes with which to defend our freedom, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Apply in that order." Be not fooled, no power exists without proper enforcement. Enforcement of power can come only through the submission of your opposition to the application of said power. As it stands, the powers of Liberty in America, the Natural Rights of the Citizen-Sovereign exist in a tiny, limited scope, and are undefendable from further trespass.

We now have quite a few guys who are standing on the Soap Box, I will join them there. We need to now move to step two. There is a Revolution at hand to return to our Republican system of government, and to add new protections to help us maintain it. The Ballot Box is our next line of defense, let us use it!

Remember, the moral of the story here is that powers which are not enforced, do not exist.

SPECIAL NOTE: to those of you who get the entirety of your understanding of political theory from broadcast television news, what i mean by Republican government is Republic vs. Empire, not George Bush vs. John Kerry. To me, George Bush AND John Kerry are representatives of the rule of Empire, and Republican government is a representative government of the people(who are the sovereign nations), under Constitutional rule.

A critique of socialism from a true libertarian perspective

2008-02-10T20:10:00.000-08:00


The universal critique of libertarian capitalists by libertarian
socialists holds its basis in semantics.  The libertarian fundamental
that one is free to do whatever one chooses so long as it does not
constitute an act of aggression upon another is set against their
economic beliefs.  They then say that accruance of personal wealth is
considered an act of economic aggression against another and therefor
is a contradiction.

This is built on a false piece of logic; that all resources belong to
society, and that when one accrues resource it comes at the expense of
someone else.  I'm not saying that there aren't lots of examples of
economic entities that do this, in fact there are, but libertarians find
these actions crimes.  The reality is, resources are in the possession
of nature, and if man does not create material resource, it does not
come into his possession at all.

Their argument holds no distinction between a large private company that
provides a great service at a low price and a constitutionally illegal
corporation that exists in the public sector.  Surely, publicly traded
corporations, insurance companies, venture capitalists definately take
opportunity and productivity away and then financially profit on it.
This is no doubt the truth, I agree with that wholeheartedly. However,
without corporate welfare and corrupt legislation, limited liability
corporation would not exist, changing the entire face of the market.

This is something libertarian capitalists and socialists agree on, where
they part ways, however, is that a libertarian believes that when a
legal, uncorrupted liable private business increases its productivity in
order to provide more goods and services, it serves a dual purpose of
assigning wealth to the company and its workers, and lowering the cost
of the product they sell due to increasing the supply in the market.
This, a libertarian belives, makes the quality of life for the working
class much better.

It is public, social institutions that do the robbing.  Publicly traded
corporations, which are limited liability entities not connected to a
private individual pool enormous wealth, enabling them to artificially
deflate prices to destroy competition, then to raise them in the end
when they get a monopoly.  Then the workers, with no other option, are
forced to unionize, driving the price even higher still, which passes
the cost right back to the worker, especially the unskilled workers who
can't unionize.

The main point of debate here is that accruance of wealth does not have
to come at the expense of someone else.  In the event that one persons
gain of private property requires stealing anothers, this is a crime.
On this I agree, however to say that increasing your production of items
to accrue more wealth is tantamount to venture capitalism is where these
well-intentioned thinkers slide off track.

The concept that the workers will then be paid less while the business
owner profits is a failing business model.  In a situation where limited
liability corporations are not allowed to profit(19th century america),
private companies who refused to pay a great wage would see a suffering
in the quality of goods, resulting in a decline in profits.  The market
would destroy such a company, and he would be liable for all the risks
involved.

Ultimately, this argumental flaw comes from semantics, not intent.
Anyone who believes a libertarian is "pro-corporation" has not read any
of the fundamental readers assigned to the movement.  It is one sketchy
ruling on applying the 14th ammendment to corporations that makes this
possible, which any libertarian would like to see overturned.  Big
businessmen need the ability to fail when they are not productive, which corporate
liability loopholes do not allow.

When you consider that application of socialism requires statism of the
highest order, let not the libertarian socialist debate semantics to the
point of confusing him into agreeing with the totalitarian statist.

Change?

2008-02-07T17:29:00.000-08:00

“When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is 
still an evil.”
-max lerner

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may 
cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
-john quincy adams


This will anger a lot of very happy people, but I can't say that I
care.  Its not in my nature, as you probably well know.

This is a bubble popping.  Just because there's hope we "can believe
in", doesn't mean its hope we "should believe in".  Bear in mind, the
general public doing the believing is the same general public that
beleived a third world county(iraq) was a threat to the U.S. National
security, the strongest military superpower in the history of the
world.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have campaigned tirelessly on the
concept of a change of direction in Washington; however they have not 
voted in such a way while in office.  This is wicked demagoguery of the
highest order.  Barack Obama may have spoken out against the Iraq War in
public life, he certainly voted to fund it in every opportunity he has 
been given.  Congress has the power to deny funding to any military action
at any time, and he, like many of the demogoguecrats, chose to prioritize
attatching pork barrel projects to the military budgets to increase
their electability at home over defunding a wicked and deadly war.  This
political expediency has a clear and defined body count of thousands of
americans and millions of arabs.

Furthermore, he voted YES on reauthorizing the wicked Patriot Act, which
overturns the constitutional protections of illegal search and seizure,
and has not signed up to co-sponser the reauthorize the constitution act,
which would undo the really heinous portions of the Military Commissions Act
which defacto authorizes torture.

These Bush-friendly votes are hardly evidence of a commitment to change;
rather they are proof of false rhetoric.  Barack Obama is not antiwar. 
Barack Obama voted to fund the Iraq War.  Barack Obama would not rule
out a nuclear first strike against the weak third world nations of Iran
and Pakistan.  This foreign policy of nuke first and ask questions later
was indicated in his responses to questions in recent debates.

Barack Obama's claims to be standing up for the poor and little guy in
our country are as empty as the echos of his false antiwar rhetoric. 
Judicialwatch.org rates him in the top 10 most corrupt politicians for
pushing for biotech legislation that benefitted his personal stock
portfolio.  His campaign coffers are loaded with huge money granted by
various corporations who will want the favors back in time.

There's still time, let it be known that before the general election, it
is wise to vote based on issues and your conscious, not rhetoric.  And
by issues, I don't mean campaign platforms, I mean by their voting
records.  These are easily available online.  There's no excuse to not
check the information out and make an informed decision.

Voting reflexively based on party lines, or voting for people you
perceive as a possible "winner" is unacceptable.  This isn't Las Vegas,
betting on a sure win does not make you rich, it makes you a sheep to
corporatism.

While the middle class is whittled away by the stock market, the people
remain fooled that a vote for a republican is for the benefit of the
rich, and a vote for a democrat is for the benefit of the poor.

A vote for obama, clinton, mccain, romney, huckabee is a vote for
corporations and globalism... No matter what party they belong to.

Sadly, I feel it may be too late to turn our course.  We are a declining
imperial power.

If the people are to believe that someone who voted for all the Bush
garbage everyone hates is our best hope for "change", then bring on the
decline.  We deserve it.  At least the Caligula period will have some
sweet orgies.

some SUPERCOOL executive orders!

2008-01-25T03:44:00.000-08:00

brought to you by the Great Society, FDR, and his New Deal!

1941: Executive Order 9102: Created the War Relocation Authority for the internment of Japanese-Americans (Hitler's Wannsee Conference where they finalized plans to make concentration camps for Jewish Germans wasn't until 1942! FDR was truly a trendsetter!)

1933: Executive Order 6102: Prohibited the hoarding of gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates

Executive Order 9066: Established areas in the U.S. from which any or all persons may be excluded → Japanese-American internment

some of FDR's other great talking points

-cut federal spending(slightly, his reign INVENTED the national debt) by cutting veteran benefits and benefits to widows of veterans, attempting to cut 500,000 war veterans and widows out of the pension program. Thanks for your hard work defending our freedoms in World War I!
-through the lend-lease act, destroyers for bases agreement, and other activities, lent arms help to the Britain, China, and the Soviet Union. this entangled us in the conflicts of WWII and eventually lead us into the fate of a deadly attack by Japan
-decided that George Washington's 2 term limitation was only arbitrary and symbolic, and ran for and got himself a fourth! only death could stop this dictator from scrawling all over the constitution
-despite being indirectly helpful in the cessation of Hitler's Holocaust, it wasn't for his love of the German Jewish community. Political expediency with the southern democrats was in order when he refused 900-some jewish refugees from Nazi Germany aboard SS St Louis asylum in our free nation, turning their sails back towards the antisemitic fervor in Europe

its wonderful how we remember this true Statist neo-American H(z)ero so fondly! (until after this fine buffet dinner of entitlements ends[starting this year], and the waiter[china] brings us the check[economic collapse, the bankrupting of social security and medicare].)

MAD LIBS

2008-01-25T03:30:00.000-08:00

Reichstag Fire

The Reichstag Fire on February 27 was blamed by Hitler's government on the Communists, and Hitler used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of President von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the following day. The decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and suspended a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the Nazi government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing the Communists.

The World Trade Center Attacks

The
The World Trade Center Attacks on September 11 was blamed by Bush's government on the Terrorists and Bush used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of Congress to issue the USA Patriot Act the following year. The decree invoked a State of Emergency and suspended a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the US Government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing .........

note:
the original text that i pulled the mad lib from was from the wikipedia article on the Weimar Republic's descent into Nazism

too many 3 syllable words about how voting is screwed up

2008-01-25T02:52:00.000-08:00

in my last blog piece.

let that video do the talking instead.

Disenfranchisement via Bureaucracy

2008-01-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

Something I've yet to see discussed, but I think might be everyone's principle complaint with government... gridlock and departmental bureaucracy sometimes by nature violates the constitution.

One thing that has become clear, there are certain constitutional provisions that the departments responsible for ensuring or protecting have become corrupted due to size and bad design. Since the unintended consequences of other aspects of government have common law precedent for their removal, voting needs this same mechanism.

One clear example of government bureaucracy failing someone is in voter disenfranchisement. The system of voting as a public, non corruptible system is already in trouble, but to make matters worse its very likely that during the day of voting you may be told you aren't allowed to vote for a reason other than what is provided for via the constitution. Rules that may be politically motivated or possibly even just badly designed may prevent you from voting. For example, what if you follow a voter registration process suggested on the phone by someone working at the polling center and the process suggested is missing a key detail. Let's say you are supposed to report a change of address by a certain date in order to vote a particular precinct. Let's say also that you do not drive yourself or own your own car, or have enough money on the particular day of voting to drive an unknown amount of mileage chasing down documents you didn't know you needed. Most average citizens probably feel that getting a voter registration card and their driver's license and showing up at a polling center is adequate to vote for your representative government, but often this is not the case. Since you are not reported to by any sort of central authority who has to make sure you know these things, it's possible the day of a key step will be missing and you will be turned away at the polling center. This is disenfranchisement, this is the reason the founding fathers went to war with the King and it is their suggestion that you do the same when facing the same situation.

There should be legal precedent that if a government authority denies you voting rights despite being a legal U.S. Citizen with voting rights provided for by the constitution and show up with a state issued form of identification to prove who you are, they should be punished to the full extent of the law for violating the constitution. It is the responsibility of the people at the polling center to accommodate you and help you place your vote, not provide you with a variety of odd hoops to jump through to earn the right again.

You are endowed by your creator with these rights, according to the language of the governing document, and the rule of law, so for the government to require you to perform actions to re-earn it is in violation of the very founding principle in the first place.

In fact, also, voter registration should be provided for at the polling center, and not required to be performed in advance. It is possible to have people verify whether or not there are suspicious things such as double voting, unverifiable identities, or non citizen voting during the counting process, which is a proper time to double check for errors. It is not the responsibility of citizens to prove through whatever means technically possible that they are in fact who they are. Simply carrying a state issued form of identification (which is in an of itself a bit of a stretch constitutionally) is going very far to err on the side of caution by the voter himself.

I suggest that during this election season, anyone who feels that bureaucratic mismanagement caused them a level of inconvenience which was preventative of them voting (being asked to go home for more documents than a state issued I.D.; being asked to visit a different bureaucratic office to acquire a document other than a voter registration card and state I.D.; being asked to visit a different county precinct or polling center than the one nearest to your home) band together with others in your state and form a class-action lawsuit against the state, claiming voter disenfranchisement. Then, furthermore, banding together with people from other states and suing the federal government for the same thing wherever federal funds are used to aid in the voting process.

This same lawsuit should be applied to any voting done in any other method than in public, by the state's proper election representatives, on physical ballots which can be visually identified by private citizens. Voting methods other than this defy reasonable technical confidence in their results and therefor disenfranchise voters by not being reliable. If a computer error or malicious code damages one result in a voting process, everyone in that pool has had their voice taken away.

Furthermore, these rigorous standards should be applied also to tax collection, the criminal judicial system, and every other system to which constitutional provisions can be defied.

Another taser death.

2008-01-18T12:04:00.000-08:00

So cops arrive at a single vehicle accident, with only one person on the scene, in the broad daylight, in the snow, for a man who was going to the airport to pick up his parents, and deploy taser on him?

then he dies?

if I did that, it would be murder, just putting it out there.

Voting.

2008-01-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

We are slipping into into a totalitarian/authoritarian style oligarchial regime, and who's to blame?

Us. No state action can happen unless there is support or a lack of resistance by the people.

Voting has deteriorated to a "lesser of two evils" despite the fact that better candidates are usually voted out somewhere in the process, by people who like the candidate, because "he can't win".

There is no lottery, if u pick the right war-mongering tax thief beaurocrat that the other 9% of fools pick, you receive no reward. In fact, you are punished for your stupidity and sheeplike attitude. Youget an authoritarian state who taxes your hard work and uses it to violate your ethics. Whether you oppose illegal wars overseas, government funded abortions, handouts to pharmaceutical companies who lobby against cures, or whatever side of the imaginary left-right battle line you sit on, your tax money will be used to do something you personally consider a crime.

And guess what, you deserve it. If you do anything less than research all the candidates, including those in third parties, and vote where your conscious lies, you are an accomplise to the crimes of imperialist america.

Remember in class, watching videos of Nazi Germany, wondering how that could happen? How could the people of that nation let this wicked government take control and destroy its own people?

Now look around. In the past fifteen years nearly all of our Bill of Rights protections have been squandered, our middle class is being eaten by banking interests, and the state is one National Emergency away from a lifetime president.

You guys are doing nothing.

I emplore you to step up. As a citizen you have a responsibility to govern, it is your duty. Vote your conscience. If you think Dennis Kucinich represents your values, or the Constitution Party, or Mike Gravel, or Pat Buchanan, vote for them. If nothing represents your viewpoint, then run yourself, on whatever level you feel you can compete. So what if you lose, you get to bring your ideas and voice into the debate.

This idea that voting is a gamble, and picking the loser has a negative consequence is a sham that takes the vote from the people and puts it in the hands of the corporate media. There are guys out there who are willing to die to save you from what's coming and you won't even go to the polls and circle next to their name because your afraid to 'waste your vote'. If the millions of 'probably wasted votes' hit the polls this year, we'd have our country back.

Vote your conscience, not who your amateur political pundits or "telephone polls" think can win. Vote for who speaks for you, not for who did well in iowa and might do well in florida.

A vote for the lessor of two evils is a vote for evil, and when this state falls to wicked men, and dies to a stronger nation... Will you too say "I was just following orders..."?

the WAR ON TERROR, the WAR IN IRAQ, and impending WAR IN IRAN was JIMMY CARTER's IDEA!

2007-12-14T11:52:00.000-08:00

This is taken from a transcript of a debate in 1980 at the League of Women Voters.
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.

to the so-called "collectivist anarchists" out there:

2007-12-13T14:37:00.000-08:00

before you go writing a million more essays about how libertarianism will sacrifice every man, woman, and child on the alter of corporatism, please reread the history of corporatism and its place in common law.

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.

You Need to Own A Gun

2007-12-02T16:10:00.000-08:00

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.

fighting corporatism the YUMMY way. steal from WalMart, they don't mind!

2007-11-29T15:08:00.000-08:00

WalMart has decided that prosecuting shoplifting under 25$ is too costly and not worthwhile to their bottom line. Since the rule of law is no longer the measure in American Empire policy, it is not necessary to follow laws which don't have an appropriate actor in place to enforce them.

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!

the two TRUE "US American" Political Parties: The Environmentalist Death Cult and the Revelations Death Cult

2007-11-27T13:46:00.000-08:00

Doom and gloom, baby. Sex and Terror sell.

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-
from-acquiring-nukes-and-obliterating-the-earth-so-surrender-your-civil-liberties-so-we-can
protect-you-from-doom-or-your-an-antisemetic-tree-hugger-hippie-anarchist party.

on the left is the global-climate-change-is-real-its-proven-to-be-science-that-the-world-will-both-melt-
and-dry-up-simultaneously-creating-a-supernova-and-a-kevin-coster-style-waterworld-if-
we-dont-institute-strict-population-control-and-take-away-your-civil-liberties-to-protect-you
from-destroying-the-world-and-endangering-the-environment-if-you-don't-agree-you-
obviously-didn't-go-to-school-and-dont-believe-in-science party.

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.

Where humanism and post-humanism fail.

2007-10-28T23:15:00.000-07:00

I'm going to get a bit esoteric here. This may be deeper than some of you would want or be able to follow me, so I won't be offended if you can't take this one to the house.

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.

Understanding a Libertarian Free Market, and how it differs from a Neoconservative George Bush free market

2007-10-22T00:22:00.001-07:00

I'm going to preface this with a little personal background to help understand why I feel the need to clarify the basic precepts of Free Market economics.

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.

Why the Patriot Act, Military Comissions Act, and other infringements upon my liberties are not valid per my citizenship with my state.

2007-10-02T16:42:00.001-07:00

Share on Facebook

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.

"Sec. 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free gov-
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."

This particular line protects my classification as an enemy combatant, as a state citizen is allowed by law to abolish the government.

"Sec. 7. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses,
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."

The Patriot Act being able to authorize warrantless searches is in direct violation of my STATE BILL OF RIGHTS, to which i am governed pursuant to the supreme court judgementof Baron vs. the City of Baltimore. Since these rights are echoed in my Federal Bill of Rights, the 14th ammendment would not serve as proper precedent to circumvent this jurisdiction, this right is echoed in the Federal Bill of Rights also.

"Sec. 8. That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of
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."

Here the Military Commissions Act judgement that an enemy combatant classification
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.

"Sec. 25. That no citizen of this state, except such as are employed
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
State."

Here, pursuant to my state Bill of Rights, Military Commissions Act is not applicable
to me, as it is a Military court and I as a state citizen can not be subjected to punishment via Martial Law.

please familiarize yourself with your particular STATE BILL OF RIGHTS. as this is likely your citizenship status, and this is where you get your rights. also, any federal law which is handed down must be accepted by the state, usually this is
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.

here's an online resource to begin your research on your own state bill of rights.

THE IRAN WAR(tm) brought to you by these sponsors:

2007-09-29T16:07:00.000-07:00

"— The Senate approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization,"
-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."

he added

“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)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

FREEDOM!

2007-09-24T17:24:00.001-07:00

I'm going to warn you guys... lot of information to cover here. I'm going to open with a Rudy Giuliani quote regarding freedom, then I'm going to break it down for clarity and respond to it.

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:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

explain to me again why we have police electrocuting college students?

2007-09-18T13:08:00.000-07:00

video of the events in question are embedded at the bottom of this blog. it is probably best to view the video before reading.

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.

September 11: Keep a Cool Head

2007-09-07T14:03:00.001-07:00

ok, i'll lead this off with the obligatory disclaimer: condolences to the friends and family of anyone lost in the sept 11 attacks of 2001, and any military, civilian, or any other casualty of conflict the world over since then. Any attempt to paint me as hating or disrespecting anyone lost will be officially heretofore clearly identified as spin.

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.

they might just turn off your chip

2007-08-26T00:48:00.000-07:00

You're not safe.

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.

how the politicians play Antiwar America for a fool: logistics

2007-08-06T15:54:00.000-07:00

"if it takes us a year and a half to move the American military from place to place, how do we launch invasions in the first place?"

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.

FINALLY! obama answers Mike Gravel's question: "Who do you wanna nuke!?"

2007-08-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

Pakistan!

and Afghanistan!

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.

health care - socialized medicine(if only it were that easy)

2007-07-31T21:55:00.000-07:00

How wonderful would it be if healthcare was an inalienable right. In fact, if protection, preservation, and prolongation of life is the goal of civilized society, then we should as a group take care of it! It is this good-hearted mindset that has opened the floodgates for the filthy disaster that is managed healthcare. 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.

Misandry, the West's New Hate

2007-07-04T14:43:00.000-07:00

Misandry is the second biggest cultural problem in the West. Number one would be a totally blantant racism towards arabs. Misandry is a close second though.

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.

Theres no solution to the abortion debate because.... NEITHER SIDE WANTS TO WIN.

2007-07-01T18:30:00.000-07:00

I'm going to open up by saying that I'm not going to chime in with my personal feelings about this subject yet, of which i have clear ones. I have had the same feelings about this subject since I first heard of it as a young child, and every statistic or news article about it seems to strengthen them. However, i don't want to go on public record about them until people know me a bit better, as people tend to throw you in one of two, very lame, groups based on which side you supposedly pick. I'm going to give devil's-advocacy to both sides of the debate here, so please read with a grain of salt, so that way i don't have to respond to 700 different people arguing against a side i may or may not even be on, with the same cliche two arguments (abortion is murder, period or its a womans body and noone has a right to tell her what to do with it). because, bottom line, i feel like both arguments are essentially bullshit gut reaction emotional puppet responses to two big teams with agendas they don't show you.

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.

College is the new indentured servitude.

2007-06-14T13:52:00.001-07:00

College is the new indentured servitude. The jealous angry hearts of the intellectual elite finally have it! Everyone can go to college! There's a billion colleges, a billion financial institutions willing to lock you up in a 100 grand worth of loans to go have a second round of high school, with lots of redudant courses, bong hits, life courses on visiting the public health department for std tests, and a lot of red eyed losers telling you over and over again why 'widespread panic' or 'dave matthews' is a genius while asking your major 20 or 30 times.(to which you answer undecided, psychology, sociology, marketing depending on how good of a pot hookup you have).

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.

arguments about politics

2007-06-08T16:24:00.000-07:00

Political spin is all about emotions. Its about clever usage of adjectives to influence peoples emotions about a subject. logic, in argument, is only the arena its played in, the actual battle is one of emotions. understanding this is key to winning.

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...

Interventionism vs. Isolationism

2007-06-02T17:18:00.000-07:00

theres a huge problem in the way the american political machine spins our heads. we don't see why the people spin it, or who they really are.

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.

YEAs ---76
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lott (R-MS) Martinez (R-FL) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)