Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

Guns and Control (Part 3)

So,

One thing that I have learned while standing outside the cage labeled “False Dilemma” watching the unfortunate zoo animals trapped within is that it doesn't take a whole lot of mental acrobatics to dismantle most of their arguments, such as the one for stricter gun control laws. In fact, it takes no effort at all because they will do all of the work for you.

Awfully kind of them.

Isn't it?

The proposed "solution" to the "problem" (maybe the cage should be labeled “Hegelian Dialectic”) of gun ownership follows the same absurd thought process as so many of their arguments:

1. People with guns are dangerous.

2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we will issue guns to people to prevent people from having guns.

Ummm, http://youtu.be/j9ndS6yu3Kk

Yes, yes you are.

As is the norm with these Pavlovian creatures and their close cousins, the sociopaths that see the contradiction but propose the “solution” anyway, the proposed “solution” immediately violates the stated goal of the proposed “solution”. As soon as they issue the first gun to a person, they have done the opposite of preventing people from having guns. If they had a solution that didn't involve issuing guns (or other, even more dangerous weapons) to people in an effort to reduce the number of guns owned by people, that would be different.

How about this? After we issue guns to people to disarm people, we issue guns to the disarmed people to take the guns away from the first group that we issued guns to.

I think you are now qualified to vote in the next presidential election.

As you can imagine, going around stealing guns from people carries with it a certain amount of risk.   Even if violence and threats of violence weren't the habitual choice for gun control proponents as an ironic "solution," it's fair to say that arming robbers who have orders to steal guns would be necessary in order to carry out the plan.

The plan of arming people to disarm people?

I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't sound right with that plan.

Truthfully, many of the people arguing in favor of this "solution" are ignorant of the absurdity that they are spouting. They have been raised to view USA, Inc. as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, ethereal entity with superhuman powers, which is free of the ethical bounds of mere mortals. In short, to these people, USA, Inc. is a god.

According to Mittler Romney, corporations aren't gods, just regular people.

Maybe he meant to say, "Corporations are personages, my friend . . . of course, they
are."

I could probably write several posts on the ramifications of this belief and the benefits gained by the rulers and their subjects by participating in this religion but for this post, it's enough to note the existence of the belief. Deifying the rulers' corporation causes a mental disconnect which blinds people from the reality of what they are truly saying. It's what leads to the most clichéd question asked when discussing freedom with a statist.

"Who will build the roads?"

"Well, who's building them now?"

"God."

They have grown so accustomed to referring to this abstract concept of government as an actual physical being with supernatural powers that they have forgotten that it's just a corporation that employs people to accomplish things.

In the name of god.

Amen.

Any "solution" they propose to deal with a "problem" they have with people is going to have those same people utilized as part of the "solution."  This obvious contradiction undermines any argument they may make and makes the rebuttals in Part 1, while still valid, completely unnecessary.  The simple answer to calls for stricter gun control is, "So, let me get this straight, you're going to issue people handguns, assault rifles, sonic weapons, energy-directed weapons (heat rays), armored personnel carriers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else weapons in order to take weapons away from people?" 

Not people, the government.

Who are reptilian aliens?

The argument is ludicrous but these people have apparently made a vow not to ever be outdone as holders of the Guinness Book of Records for Absurdity.  Guess which people they want to give the guns to?  The same type of people who have killed over 10,000,000 people in the last 75 years, employees of the US government.  Now, I don't know about you but if I suddenly became demented and decided to impose my will on over 300 million people, I would still hope that my ideas sounded like they might possibly be in the vicinity of Rationalville.  Employees of USA, Inc. and despots receiving billions of dollars in US tax money each year probably kill more people in one month than nonemployees do in an entire year.  The plan proposed by gun control advocates is actually:

People with guns are dangerous.

Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we are going to say, "Screw that!" and issue guns to those people with a predilection toward violence or who have been so fully indoctrinated into the religion that they will blindly follow orders to commit violence against innocent people . . .

I don't know the rest.  What motivates these people is beyond me.  I'm still guessing that it's because their high priests tell them what to do and what to think.  It's clear that it has nothing to do with rationality, reasoning, logic, or facts.  Perhaps it's the combination of obedience to their religion along with the emotional delivery of the message.  Employees of USA, Inc. killed more children at Waco than were killed in Sandy Hook and they do this all the time all over the planet.  Shouldn't gun control activists be advocating for control of those people? 

It's against their religion.

If they did that, their souls may be condemned to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity.

Or until they starved themselves to death to escape the brutality of people employed by the US government.

Guns and Control (Part 2)

So,

In part 1, I discussed two rebuttals by gun owners in response to calls for more gun control laws.  In part 3, I'll point out the inherent absurdity of the proposed gun control "solution" but today, I'm going to discuss the rebuttal from gun owners that I find lacking and the reasons why I find it wanting.  One of my reasons is fairly common sense and the other shows how gun owners are helping to perpetuate a system hell-bent on seizing their guns. 

The 1% have more control than ever and their actions, such as having their butt-puppet, The Great and Powerful Oz, sign NDAA into law demonstrates that they are afraid the people aren't going to take much more.  Much of the hype by corporate media surrounding recent sensationalized incidents of violence in the United States has been fabricated or exaggerated while ongoing, massive violence by employees of the United States government is ignored by the same "concerned" media sources.  The purpose behind the hype is to persuade those who are too stoopid to know better into supporting the 1% in disarming their enemy, the 99%.

They are just concerned about our safety.

Yes, that's obvious.  Disarm the citizens and dissolve entire police departments.  I'm feeling safer already.

Not to worry.  When the police prove to be inadequate, expect to see the military called in to "protect" American citizens.

Who is going to protect the American citizens from the military?

You.  Without.  A.  Gun.

Do you think they would be content with a 2 out of 3 bout of rock, paper, scissors?

Not likely.

However, there is a push by quite a few people to reach out to military and law enforcement officers in an effort to convince them that attacking Americans violates their oath (in addition to being just plain evil).  Speaking of oath, if the two of you are quite finished hogging my blog, it's an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution, or rather the 2^nd Amendment, is the third common argument that I see put forth by gun owners as a rebuttal for stricter gun control and it is by far the weakest of the arguments.  I understand the desire to throw into the mix.  The two, more powerful rebuttals, are rejected so there is this feeling that adding another argument may help.  However, in addition to lacking the strength of the other two arguments and continuing a defeating mindset, it acts as a distraction from the better arguments.  While the two sides bicker about the meaning of the oddly worded amendment and attempt to read the minds of people long since dead, better arguments sit idle.

The common sense problem with using words written on a piece of paper by the rulers of the country is that the rulers can write new words on a piece of paper (or simply just ignore the "god damned piece of paper").  When the rulers do write new words on a piece of paper and your argument was based on the previous words on a piece of paper, your argument is gone.  The possibility that the rulers will write new words on a piece of paper brings up a new argument from gun owners.

Whether or not the new piece of paper is made out of recycled materials.

Or from the skin of someone who stood in the way of ExxonMobil.

Our rulers would never do that, would they?

I'm pretty sure I heard Obama say, "It puts the lotion on its skin," before his last drone attack. 

"This drone attack was brought to you by ExxonMobil.  ExxonMobil, bringing you a brighter tomorrow."

Unless you were the family hit by the drone.

The main thrust of the new argument is on the sacred nature of the Constitution and how changing it would be very, very, very, very wrong.  However, if you bring up changes that abolished slavery or allowed women to vote, the response is, "Well, yeah, those changes were right."  This drops the entire discussion into the realm of the subjective with both sides arguing about the nature of allowable or "right" changes.  Neither side can win this debate because it's a matter of personal opinion.  Easily changed or ignored words on a piece of paper that invokes debates based on a person's point of view completely deballs the Constitutional argument against gun control. 

Yeah, but what if I used the Constitution to make a paper airplane drone?

Then you'd have an argument that was lost in the next gust of wind.

Not only does the 2^nd Amendment rebuttal to gun control score a zero, it has the potential to reaffirm an insidious belief system in those making the argument.  This paradigm is anchored more deeply each time a statement is uttered such as, "The 2^nd Amendment gives me the right to . . ."  This creates or continues the illusion that people have 2^nd Amendment rights.  They don't and it's a very dangerous belief.

WhuchyoutalkinboutWillis?

I hate to say this but I'm with the goofball on this one.

People are constantly discussing their Constitutional rights (in fact, I have done so often in the past) as if they exist.  The danger of this mindset, of believing that the Constitution gives people rights, goes back to the heart of what the Constitution is: words on a piece of paper written by the rulers.  If it were the case that people were given the right by the words on the paper to own a gun, all the rulers would have to do to take away that right is change the words on the paper (or write new words in the form of a "law" that "nullifies" the right).

The truth is that you have human rights based on the fact that you are human.  You might call these inalienable rights.  You have them by the mere fact of being you.  They aren't granted to you by words on a paper.  You have these rights, period, not because they were bestowed upon you by some corporation (even one with an impressive name like The United States of America, Inc.).

Can I buy stock in that corporation?

You are the stock in that corporation.

What people habitually call a "Constitutional Right" is actually a "Constitutional Restriction" on the allowable actions by the rulers.  You don't have a right to own a gun because of the 2^nd Amendment.  You have the right to own a gun because humans have the right to own property.  People do not have the right to take your property without your consent.  Since the rulers exempted themselves from this basic moral principle, they had to put some assurances down in writing (2^nd and 4^th Amendments) for the people that they, the rulers, wouldn't just take stuff from people without a good reason.

But don't the rulers get to decide what amounts to a "good reason?"

Very good, Grasshopper.

By incessantly arguing about the 2^nd Amendment granting the right of the people to bear arms, the false notion that the government gives people rights is ingrained even deeper.  The truth of the matter is that governments can't grant rights which are inalienable, they can only violate those rights.  In fact, their whole existence depends on violating the rights of people.  If the rulers can somehow get the people to believe and act like their rights are derived from the government, the people can be more easily controlled.  If the people trap themselves in this mindset, the rulers don't have to openly expose the true basis of their control, their willingness to initiate violence against the people.

To be continued . . .

Guns and Control (Part 1) *Updated

So,

Scrolling down my Facebook wall, I see that the gun control debate(?) continues.  The 1% apparently still have the support of The Great and Powerful Oz's cult members.  Quite frankly, I am surprised that Obama still has followers, nevermind loyal followers, especially on this issue.  They voted for a guy who has officially started twice as many wars as King George (W Bush for those of you who are new visitors), plus who knows how many unofficial wars, and has used six times as many drones as the Illiterate One.  As violent as his supporters are, you would think they would be clamoring for government handouts of drones so they could all fly one and kill someone.

Can you use an iPhone to control the drone?

I'm sure Obama has the app.  Maybe he'll share.

The minions and people who believe in freedom have tried to point out the complete lack of logic in the argument for gun control.  While they have, for the most part succeeded, I feel like they have missed the heart of the issue.  Not that it would change anything.  Democrats are, for the next few years, the obedient servants of the 1% and reasoning, rationality, and logic have no place in their lives at the moment.  

At the moment?

Well, there was that one time that . . . oh wait, no, I was thinking of Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Republicans are better?

Shah, as if.

No, when the Republican representative of the 1% gets voted in as president, it will likely be worse because the response to any objection to the president's insane policies will be, "Screw you!  We had 8 years of your guy so suck it!"  

That seems perfectly logical.

To you and 10% of the people in the state hospital.

Can we get back on task, please?  From what I can gather, the logic of the argument from the people trying to disarm the people so the 1% can more easily control every aspect of the lives of their inferiors goes something like this:

1. People with guns are dangerous.

2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore . . .

Can I point something out about statement number 1?

No, you'll ruin everything.

Again, from what I can gather (because I can think for myself and do not belong to either team so I'm guessing at their reasoning(?)), the rebuttals from anti-gun control people generally fall into three categories.  Two of them are tied directly to presumed logic for gun control and the third is based on the Constitution.  I will save the discussion about the Constitution for part 2 of this blog post because it's groundless and doesn't actually deal with the argument presented to support gun control.

Did he say "groundless?"

Yes, and I'm sure he'll hear about it.

Rebuttal #1 directly challenges statement #1 by showing that (1) places where gun control restrictions are the strictest have higher rates of violent crime, meaning that people who live in areas where guns are routinely carried by citizens are safer than their counterparts.  (2) I also routinely see stories on Facebook walls where a citizen was able to protect themself or a third party from harm because they had a gun.  Not only are guns not dangerous but they protect people from harm.  Many of the Facebook posters go on to state that it's the people that you have to worry about, not the guns. 

Rebuttal #2 takes a different approach by agreeing with the general logic of the argument presented and pointing out that, if this logic is true, it only makes sense to start with the most dangerous situations first and move down the list.  To make the world a safer place in the least amount of time, it makes sense to take on the most critical issues first.  Being in a Software Engineering class at the moment, this concept makes perfect sense to me.  You deal with the biggest risk first and work your way down the list.  Whatever is killing the most people should be banned first.

Do people really care "what makes sense" when they are trying to exert control over other people by using violence and the threat of violence?

Not that I can see.

Obesity, cigarettes, cars, doctors and hospitals, and a whole schload of things come in above guns when it comes to people dying.  It doesn't make sense to jump down to something that kills 30,000 people a year when, "According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use (3). An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic (57)," (WV Department of Health and Human Resources).  This becomes even more true if you discount suicide by guns because more people in the United States kill themselves with a gun than kill someone else. 

Does that mean that suicide should be illegal?

Yes, no one is allowed to kill people except the government.

If you make gun ownership illegal and someone can't get one on the alternate market or steal one from their mom, they could just pop all the pills in their medicine cabinet or park their running car in the garage. 

Make all those things illegal.  That's what I say!

And prosecute the dead person?  What's next?  Give them the death penalty?

It's obvious that the call for gun control by the masses isn't grounded in any logical reasoning.  My guess is that it's caused by an emotional response to sensationalized stories by the 1 percent's media but that's only a guess.  There is obviously something going on here beyond a concern for human life.  Under the orders of their messiah, government employees kill people on a daily basis, fund terrorist groups, perform false flag missions against their own people, assassinate people who refuse to cooperate, incite riots and revolutions, and all manner of other actions that end with the death of innocent people.  No, they clearly don't give a rat's ass about human life so I'm left with the inclination that they are anti-gun because they have been told to be anti-gun and the message has been delivered to them in an emotional wrapper to not only make it easier to swallow but to make them *want* to swallow it.  While they voted for a president who started twice as many illegal wars as the last guy (not including all the covert wars, illegal wars called by some other name, and people killed by despotic rulers paid by the US government), it makes them feel self-righteous to champion the anti-gun cause.

This attitude, this absurd claim to moral high-ground while voting for a mass murderer, I find to be the second most surprising thing about the team on the left side of the 1%.

* Update: Destiny put this in my YouTube feed tonight - http://youtu.be/V3MuzLezG9s

To be continued . . .

Hammers and Nails

So,

Here I am with a blog post.  Amazing, I know.  College took more than even I expected this last term and the next one, which starts tomorrow, doesn't look like it will be any lighter.  I haven't been able to stay up to date with current events in the depth that I prefer and have been reduced to scanning headlines most of the time.  A recurring theme I have heard is that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I saw a video (posted below) about the Quebec student protests that brought this to mind this morning.  Students in Quebec (and around the world) are upset about the escalating cost of higher education and are letting the government know about it.  Someone with half a brain would think that an appropriate response would be to work on some way to lower the cost of education.  Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians. 

The truth is that the hammer *is* the primary tool in the government workbelt but the reason that it is finally getting so much press is that it's been used more transparently, more often, and predominately against the 99%.  The Internet has been effective enough at reducing the other major tools (propaganda and indoctrination) that the hammer is being used liberally while the 1% tries to find a way to gain control over the world wide web.

Instead of looking at reducing tuition costs for students or even *saying* they will look at reducing tuition costs for students, the rocket surgeons wielding the hammer passed a law making it illegal to protest without permission from the police.  That's like a patient going in to take care of an itchy rash on his right arm and the doctor tying down the patient's left arm to keep him from scratching it.  Actually it's worse than that because, in this case, it brought extra people into the fight on the students' side.

People who were not protesting tuition hikes came out to protest the new anti-protest law.  Shortly after the law was passed, 700 people were arrested for illegally protesting.  This just brought more people out to protest the arrests and the heavy-handed tactics used by the police.  The response to the hammer seems to be such a no-brainer that it leaves me wondering what game the lawmakers are playing.  Have they painted themselves into such a corner that they are powerless to do anything else?  Wouldn't it have been better to do nothing than fan the flames? 

What do you think?  Why are lawmakers around the world making symptoms illegal instead of dealing with the disease?

Hanging Bankers

So,

Ken Livingstone, the homophobic tart and London mayoral candidate, made the news today by announcing a new plan to fix the economic problems of the world.  That plan is to hang a banker each week until the remaining bankers figure it out and bring themselves into line.  This plan is likely to have some appeal (hopefully not enough to get him the job) but it fails on so many levels that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start.

First, the fact that Livingstone, the closet fag, is so openly anti-gay means that he should not be allowed to be in charge of a city, or a church choir, or a family, or even be allowed out in the public without a shock collar.  Worse yet is the fact that he gets press coverage for this shit (gay bashing not hanging bankers).  It's unfortunate that the press-titutes publish this stuff.  They are so hard up for ratings or in favor of gay bashing that they actually give this shitbag press time.  People like this should get a media blackout that would make Ron Paul look like a rockstar.

Okay, all of that had nothing to do with the problem with Livingstone's comments but I am sick unto death of people, especially power hungry bitches, attacking gay people.  It makes me understand why people might nod their heads at his hanging bankers comment because quite frankly, wrong as it might be, it would be quite enjoyable to kick Livingstone as hard as I can in the balls.  He'd need a tonsillectomy to get them removed.

However <deep breath>,

That's not the solution and neither is hanging bankers.  Like Livingstone, bankers may be maggots but what makes them dangerous is the ability to wield the violence of the government.  Without the government, the "too big to fail" would have failed long ago, oil companies would be dinosaurs, Livingstone would never have a single comment repeated by the media, and gay people could marry anyone that they wanted to.

When you give one group of people the power to wield an ungawdly amount of violence and another group of people more money than gawd, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what kind of barter system is going to to be set up.  It's something that hanging bankers is not going to fix.  Next you'd have to hang owners of big oil, big pharma, big agriculture, and big whatever comes next. 

I don't think that Livingstone is smart enough to know what he's doing so it's probably completely accidental that he's throwing the red herring.  He's just trying to use a ploy to get himself into office where he can lord over young male interns under his desk. 

Occupy Wall Street is making the same mistake.  They are mad because the rich can use money to buy politicians completely undermining any idea of a representative republic for the people by the people.  Money is the vote.  Lobbyists write the laws and law makers don't actually read the laws.  They just vote what it says on the memo line on the bribery check.  OWS wants, like so many people, to get the money out of politics.  First, that's the wrong part of the equation to be looking at and second, it's just plain impossible. 

Who is going to pass a law saying that politicians can't accept money?  The law makers?  Shah, as if.  If the law was passed, who would enforce it?  People appointed by the law makers?  That would be effective.

I stand with OWS against people being able to purchase the capacity for violence from the government but the key isn't in hanging bankers.  It's in teaching people that the government does not have the legitimate right to initiate the use of force against people.  It's in showing that the immorality in the situation isn't in renting the initiation of force, it is the initiation of force.   It's the people who rob, steal, taze, pepperspray, kettle, kill, kidnap, rape, and do it all under "the color of law".  All of the "legal" immoral actions taken against the people, that's the real problem. 

Education is key also because education isn't violence.  Violence is not the solution.  Hanging bankers or burning down buildings is not going to solve the problem.  Best case scenario for those people thinking that a violent revolution is the answer is that this batch of immoral thugs will be replaced with another set of immoral thugs.  Things might be better for a while but in today's fast-paced world, the money would find it's way back into the system within a couple of election cycles.  That's how the game works.  Unlimited power + unlimited money = unlimited corruption. 

The true problem is the belief system and when that changes, everything else will change with it.  When the belief system changes, the government will not have enough violence to stop the change.  Respect for the government is already a thing of the past.  In its place is fear.  When fear passes, we will enter the next step for the human race.

. . . to be continued.

Stepping On Toes

So,

Toad Gingrich's, uhh, toadies decided to make life rough for a Ron Paul supporter.  A lone Ron Paul supporter was out with his sign showing is love for the revolution when Toad's bus stop for a press moment, which the smacktard held in front of the only Ron Paul sign in a 20 mile radius.  Someone finally figured it out and also figured out that the Ron Paul supporter in Florida was wearing flip-flops.  Toad's henchman stepped on the poor guy's feet in order to make him want to leave the area. 

I was going to add something to yesterday's post . . .

Because we can't ever just tell a story in a straight line.

If you look out the window on the right side, you'll see the Grand Canyon.

. . . and this seems like a good place to throw it in as being slightly relevant.

Since I know that you have all read yesterday's post, I'm going to go into more than saying that the United States government is putting the hurt on journalists who dare expose the truth.  One thing that I have seen up close and personal and which is very apparent in the machinations of the government is this theme of attacking people who have the audacity to tell the truth. 

When the cops kick the snot out of peaceful protesters, there are a couple of options available.  One would be to apologize and take steps to see that it doesn't happen again.  The other is to expand the violence to include journalists so that you can keep kicking the snot out of humans but not get the negative publicity.

Toad's people could have stopped the bus somewhere else.  If they somehow missed the bright blue sign and still started the conference, they could have moved.  They could have asked the guy politely to put his sign down for the interview.  Or, they could have resorted to violence in an attempt to force the guy to move out of the public space that he was occupying.

For those that lack morality, force is by far the easier answer when dealing with people who hold different beliefs.  A person could choose to use reason, rationality, logic, persuasion, and sexual favors in order to gain support for an idea but these take a lot of effort and patience.  Believe me when I tell you that I know and I can see how tempting the shortcut called violence could be for people. 

And that's for people who have "good" intentions.  Sociopaths like Newt and Obama know that they would never get the people to throw their support behind the 1% because their is no convincing argument and that leaves force as the only option.  Americans will bail out anyone that the truly corrupt and evil choose to bail out, start war after endless war, and accept a tragic decline in their quality of life because they have no choice. 

Newt's attack on a lone Ron Paul supporter demonstrates what happens when violence becomes that ingrained in a person.  Rationality is gone.  Never mind things like respect or compassion or human rights.  Those concepts are so far out of the reach of people like Newt that he would have to respond with a hearty guffaw and words of mockery for such "naive" ideals.  Violence is how the game is played and if you don't like how "elected officials" are using the violence then you should get involved so that you can decide how to use the violence.  That's the trap, isn't it?  People get sucked into lowering themselves to a moral level equal with the sociopaths responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people a year.

You'll be happy to know (unless you killed your brain huffing glue to the point where you are a Newt supporter) that the Ron Paul supporter didn't give up his position.  He has bruises and a cut on one of his feet but he, quite literally, stood his ground. 

Being peaceful doesn't mean being a doormat but that's a topic for another day.

Violence begets violence and peace brings peace.  It's hard.  It's slow.  It feels impossible.  It's going to take a lot of education in things like respect, morality, and thinking.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  I was with you until that last one.

Just grab some cheezy-puffs at the next commercial and you'll feel better.

The transition is not going to be pretty.  It already isn't and it's going to get worse.  For me, the vision of what's on the other side makes it worth it.  Humans are going to take a big step forward in the next little while and while some may see it as scary, I think it's exciting.  I believe that we will see some very amazing things when humans are allowed to cooperate around the planet.  So amazing that at this point in time, we can't even imagine what some of those things are going to be. 

Bullies who step on toes will be outcasts and the idea of voting to give sociopaths unlimited violence potential will sound as outlandish as the idea of owning people sounds to us now.  It will be a bizarre idea read about in history books with students shaking their heads in absolute wonder about how people could ever take part is such an absurd ritual.

Some of us are already there.

Freedom of the Press

So,

I read an article today from Reporters Without Borders about their Press Freedom Index for 2011 - 2012.  No surprise but the United States dropped in ranking going from number 20 to number 47.

Damn you Occupy Wall Street!

Maybe they put too much importance on things like beating journalists with night-sticks.

"The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them."

Suppressing the blatant disregard for civil liberties is obviously a big part of the equation but I think there are a couple huge chunks that may have played roles in the plummet in the US ranking, with OWS acting as the catalyst to bring these things to the surface.  The article is big picture taking in the entire world in one article but in the case of the United States, it's vital to include the changing face of "media" and who the spotlight is pointed at when Occupiers start chanting.

The fact that anyone and everyone can be a journalist (although cities are going to be much more strict with press credentials from now on - to keep the riff raff out, doncha know).  When there were only 6 major media corporations controlling the release of information, it was safer to allow journalists near the action because it was easier to tell them which stories to cover and maintain control on what was eventually released to the public.

Similar to watching the Great and Powerful Oz do a "press release", only people who will go along to get along are allowed to participate with a camera.  Anyone allowed to ask Obama questions has to sign a "Softballs Only" agreement.  Before Obama declared himself a third world tyrant, anyone asking a question seeking real information would be banned from any further presidential "press releases", fired, black listed, and called names by the lapdogs still allowed to sit in the same room as Oz.  Today, armed with NDAA, JSOC, and other "laws" repealing the Constitution, any journalist with the balls to ask Obama a question of any informational value will find themselves in Gitmo with electrodes connected to said balls with no legal means of getting released.

Ohhh, the Monica Lewinsky presidential media contract.

To get close to the prez, you have to suck His dick?

Your self-esteem has got to take a hit when you suck the dick of Goldman Sachs' little bitch.

The Great and Powerful Squeak?

Sounds about right.

In today's world though, anyone with a camera, smart phone, or blog is part of the media.  The whole world is watching.  It's impossible to control what goes on the Internet (although Obama is doing His part for the 1% and signed the ACTA Treaty - Yes, it's a direct violation of law for Obama to sign a treaty without Congressional approval but puppet dictators don't pay much attention to Congresses) so, at the moment, police are trying their best to restrict media from being too close when they start pepper spraying and tazing people for committing the crime of being alive.

Weird as it may seem with the bright colors and the voices in my head getting to say their piece, this blog is part of the media.  The old media used to control the release of propaganda information and, as such, were able to really lead people around.  Today, I (and many, many others) are able to talk about peace and freedom in a medium that can reach the entire planet.

Enemy combatant!  Enemy combatant! 

Smartass has been watching OZTV again.  All Obama, all the time.

With the Internet, it's not only possible to show video of the police shooting people in the head with tear gas canisters because the 1% told them to do it, we can also discuss solutions outside the one party, one percent, solution.

This is obviously motivation to suppress freedom of press and freedom of speech and Freedom in general, especially when you couple it with the fact that the alternative media is pointing its cameras at the depraved actions of the 1% and the government officials that they have bought.  The 1% owned the media and were quite happy to report on anything and everything from six inches of the dead body if it had no relation to them.  Now that the cameras are pointed at the 1%, journalists have to be miles away from where the cops are running over people with their scooters.

Freedom of the Press was a great saying while the 1% owned the press resulting in the fact that there wasn't actually any freedom of the press.  Now that the 1% are actually threatened with freedom of the press, their puppets in the United States government are coming down hard on anyone who dares speak or show the truth. 

This brings us back to the quote from Reporters Without Borders but in the case of the United States, the dictatorship isn't held by the government, it's held by the 1% that own the government.  It was so much easier for them before Occupy Wall Street and that's why the United States was mistakenly ranked at number 20.  Now that the 1% are losing control of information and people are starting to look at them, they are reacting violently and the United States press freedom index ranking is going to continue to tank.  Truth is the greatest threat to the 1% and their puppet government and must be suppressed at all costs (using tax payer money of course - don't want anything ruining this year's multi-billion dollar bonus).

Disempowerment

So,

I was reading articles today on piracy (copyright not Somalia) as part of my research into the topic I posted on Monday and I read something that I didn't give much thought to initially.  I was glancing over Obama's misStatement of the Union address later in the morning and I thought back to what I had read in the piracy article and felt like it had missed the actual key issue.  Here's that part of the article on copyright protection:

"The culture of the Internet also needs to be taken into consideration. Referring to the high rates of illegal downloading, Mr. Gurry said “In order to effect a change in attitude, I believe that we need to re-formulate the question that most people see or hear about copyright and the Internet. People do not respond to being called pirates…They would respond, I believe, to a challenge to sharing responsibility for cultural policy. We need to speak less in terms of piracy and more in terms of the threat to the financial viability of culture in the 21^st Century, because it is this which is at risk if we do not have an effective, properly balanced copyright policy.” (Emphasis mine - Complete Article)

The implication that I got from reading this paragraph is that by calling everyone who has ever used content that media corporations would deem as a violation of copyright, you run the risk of creating an adversarial environment.  Pissing everyone off will probably eventually come back on you but this isn't the true danger to media corporations of yelling "Pirate" every time a teenager shares a song with his friend.

What brought my mind back to the article and caused me to actually think about the problem with the pirate label were a couple of comments made by the Great and Powerful Oz in His delusional speech that is supposed to set the tone for His re-election campaign.

What tone is that?  "Ride the crazy train with me!"

Right off a cliff.

In this case, it was nothing that he directly said but something that I thought was telling, which lead my mind down a path that eventually took me back to the thought about labels.

His mind is like a mouse maze.

If he gets to the point, do we get some cheese?

Here's a couple of those innocuous sentences:

"What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values."

"One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter."

For those of you who are Republicrats, it may not be obvious but for me it just jumps right up in my face.  Patriots, heroes, and people with values only come in two flavors, Republican or Democrat.  Independants, you're probably okay as long as you keep flip-flopping between voting for Republicans and Democrats.  Should you ever stop though, you will lose your status as an appropriately obedient part of the one percent's plan and will be an outcast.

And if you aren't with 'em serving them, you're agin' 'em a terrorist.

Here's where the 1% and their mouthpieces, Bush and Obama, make a mistake.

In 2001, the word "terrorist" had a very clear and powerful meaning.  People that blow up buildings with innocent people in them.  A level of evil that is hard to even fathom.  Terrorists were feared and hated because they were terrorists.

Since then, what have Bush and Obama done with the clear and powerful definition of terrorist?  Well, here are some of the things off the top of my head that can earn you the much-feared brand of "Terrorist":

• Not voting for a Republican or Democrat
• Worse yet, making you a level 2 terrorist, is not voting <gasp>
• Displaying a "Don't Tread on Me" flag
• Carrying Ron Paul bumper stickers
• Owning a gun
• Having more than 7 days of food storage

Hell, I live right next to a whole state full of terrorists.  In fact, Mormons in Tennesee had federal agents visit a food storage facility attempting to get a list of names of people who used the facility. 

Now, in branding people as terrorists, the hope of course is to get people to cower to perceived peer pressure and remain obedient to the system.  No one wants to be labeled a terrorist, right?

That may have been true 10 years ago but today, it has become a joke.  Everyone who isn't one of Obama's cult members or who doesn't get their "news" spoon-fed to them by Fox is a terrorist.  The word has lost all of its oomph.  It's meaningless.  Now, if someone tells you something about a terrorist, you have to ask for clarification.  "Do you mean Al Queda terrorist or do you mean Occupy Wall Street terrorist?"

The tactic used to be one of trying to get everyone to aspire to the label of "Patriotic".  As that failed, people were labeled as terrorists or, at least, potential terrorists.  That tactic has been played out as the context of the word has been watered down into uselessness.  The result of this failure to control people mentally and emotionally is obvious in things like the creation of NDAA.  If the one percent can't rely on psy ops to control the public, they'll use the military to keep all the terrorists ordinary citizens in line.  Obedience is the only acceptable behavior.  Anything else is terrorism and must be destroyed.

Attempting to change the behavior of people by applying a negative label to culturally acceptable behavior doesn't change their behavior, it changes the meaning of the word used for the label.

Occupy Wall Street and the 2012 Election

So,

For those of you that were wondering, yes, I'm still alive. 

The big talk now is the fact that there is only a year left before the next batch of sociopaths is elected and will Obama make the cut and how will Occupy Wall Street affect the outcome with Obama being Wall Street's bitch?  Can he somehow convince them that he's on their team?

Only if the New York winter freezes their brains.

Well the fire department did take away their generators, for their safety of course.

They will freeze to death safely.  That's good to know.

I suppose that it would be good timing to address a question from the previous blog post since it pertains to this topic.

"But do you *really* think Obama -- who signed Frank-Dodd into law, fought hard for the consumer financial protection act, and INHERITED the whole TARP chaos -- is a Wall Street crony who doesn't give a shit about the little guy???

Really???

Maybe constructive criticism would be more helpful."

Well, considering that He has continued to bail out Wall Street, His top advisors come from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and Wall Street has made more money in the last 3 years than in the previous 8 years combined, I would have to say that what I *really* think is immaterial.  The facts speak for themselves.  If you really want to know what I think, I'll put it this way.  If the Great and Powerful Oz ever gets any symptoms of colon cancer, Lloyd Blankfein will know about before Obama's staff of doctors.

"Feel right here, doctor, this isn't right?"

"Are you sure?  That seems normal."

"It wasn't there yesterday and Jamie Dimon says it wasn't there the day before.  I think you better do a biopsy because I've got too much money invested in this mouhtpiece."

"You know the mouthpiece is at the other end?"

"Whatever."

You know Democrats don't have a sense of humor when it comes to their Messiah, right?

Can I read the first piece of hate mail?

Let's move on to constructive criticism.

Oh, this should be good.

I'm only reading the first piece of hate mail.

It was kind of a vague suggestion on who I'm supposed to help so I'll dish out a bunch.

Let's start with The One, Oz himself.

What kind of constructive criticism do you give a guy that makes Al Capone look like Mother Teresa?

I would have picked Ghandi.

My constructive criticism is this: keep doing what you're doing because apparently some people just don't get it yet and are still supporting You in supporting the 1%.  You, Mr. President, have completely outdone my expectations on your blatant hypocrisy, broken promises, and taking money from Wall Street to completely fuck over the American people.  For some though, 3 or 4 years isn't going to be enough, so use a teleprompter to keep from sounding like Beavis and Butthead, stick to the script, and run a good race and give the people 4 more years of your stellar performance.

Next, the Neo Cons.

Are you going to sugar coat this one too?

He did hold back on Obama, didn't he?

I sincerely don't know what to say about them.  I summed it up last time.  These people are batshit crazy.  I saw a video recently that said that the Republican handlers are actually Democrats because the Neo Cons are saying exactly the wrong things to win an election, when they aren't just being stupid.

When aren't they being stupid?

The smartass has a point this time.

I guess I can just encourage them to keep on doing what they're doing so they can alienate everyone on the planet.  That way, even if Obama and Blankfein are the only people who show up at the polls, Obama will win.  Just like last time, I'm rooting for the cult members because I think it paints a clearer picture of the hypocrisy, violence, and corruption of the system with Obama at the helm.  If a Neo Con gets into the White House, people won't be surprised when another foreign country is turned into a crater because they dared to promote democracy or threatened to stop using the US Dollar as the world currency.  Obama, the guy that was going to end the wars and stop torturing people, is setting the record for the number of countries attacked.

Including America.

Hey!  If you aren't with Wall Street, yer again' us and deserve to be beaten down with batons, peppersprayed, shot in the head with tear gas cannisters, trampled by horses, hit by scooters, and run over by cars.

Ummm, something about that doesn't sound right.

Yeah, the scooters.  How not-manly is it to ride around as a cop on a scooter?

Maybe they were short-handed that day and the meter maids were called out to help run over protesters.

Does anyone remember where we were?

Taking a ride on the ADHD version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride?

Constructive criticism.

Who else should we help out?  Occupiers?

Keep up the great work!  Keep it peaceful.  Keep looking for solutions.  The longer you ask the questions, the better your chance of finding the solution and the more other people will start looking for solutions.  Keep the videos coming.  The thin veil covering the police state is being ripped to shreds with all the videos that are coming out.  People are being arrested for standing on public sidewalks.  It is illegal to not support Wall Street but legal and moral are, more often than not, opposites. 

This movement actually gives me hope.

Are you going to let the cult members off the hook?  After all, they can't help it.

Yeah, go easy on them.  The DNC has their brains locked in a vault guarded by a waterfall that detects invisibility and a dragon.

Fine but would it be okay if I addressed the comment about Frank-Dodd?

Wheeee!

This won't be pretty.

This is such a beautiful masterpiece that sums up the Obama administration with incredible accuracy.  This bill is the most "broad" and "sweeping" bill since Noah came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments.

Noah?  Isn't that the boat guy?

Boat guy? 

What does this broad and sweeping bill do?  Nothing.

Wow, that is broad.

And sweeping.

Words.  More words.  Hope and Change.  Broad and Sweeping.  The bill set up a plan to create regulations somewhere down the road, somewhere between 200 to 400 regulations designed by a couple dozen 3-letter agencies whose Tsars are no doubt on the take from Wall Street.  Of the first 40 "regulations" passed, they were all watered down or completely neutered so as to make this broad and sweeping bill completely toothless.

I heard that how Blankfein likes his Presidential blowjobs.

Business as usual in Washington.

Passing this bill was like having a meeting to set a date about when to have a meeting to determine who should be in charge of being in charge of the next meeting. 

Kind of like Hoping for Change.

But not actually changing anything.

Just like that.

Occupy Wall Street: A View from Outside the Box

So,

I have heard of the movement, uhh, I've seen it on TV.

You aren't going to let that one go, are you?

Did you think he would?

Okay, I've been following Occupy Wall Street closer than President Ohblahblah will admit.

You know it's part of his daily briefings right?

And night time briefings, and noon time, and . . .

Yes, I know.  He's a smacktard but that is not the point of this blog at all. 

Is there going to be a point?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Not a single point, no.  That would not be in keeping with the theme of this blog, would it?

Theme?

<shrug>

First, the good news.  The propaganda media, with the exception of Faux news, has finally come to grips that there is a very clear message to Occupy Wall Street.  It only took them a month to finally admit it.  They were probably hoping that the protesters would go away before now but, unfortunately for them, we are into month two with protests around the entire planet.  They, except for Faux news, have finally started letting the world know what we already knew.  You can't have a country by the people for the people when you auction off votes to the highest bidders.

Ya think?

Didn't we know that before the protests?

Now, the big question that seems to be on everyone's mind is what is the president going to do about this whole thing.  The consensus at this date is that he has to be very careful.  He needs to acknowledge the frustrations of the people that he has screwed over but at the same time he doesn't want to get in bed with him, as one of his spokespeople was quick to point out recently.  I was kind of glad to see that the Great and Powerful Oz was letting other people do the talking for him.  One of the reasons he was elected was because he was more articulate than King George.

So are my farts.

Hard to lower the bar from there.

Without a teleprompter, dude is losing His composure.  I think he'll get re-elected because the Republican candidates are utterly batshit crazybut by year seven, it's going to be like watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead.

Heh, heh, your name is Bush, heh, Bush, heh, heh.

He's got his people StatusQuo.org MoveOn.org and the unions down there trying to steer the whole mess but he can't get too involved.  Faux news is trying so hard to turn Occupy Wall Street into Tea Party Left that it's become a joke.  Now, it's possible and quite likely that many of the Faux news people are really as stoopid as they sound but it's also possible that they have been told to do everything they can to turn OWS into Tea Party Left.  The establishment cannot let this anarchist movement to go on indefinitely.  The people must be divided into the two sides and pitted against each other.  Right now, you have communists, Obama cult members, Independents, Ron Paul republicans, Anarchists, and everyone else meeting every day discussing solutions.  Actual, real, solutions.  This cannot be allowed to continue.  If the people ever figure out the solution, there will be an immense exchange of power and, quite frankly, this is not something that sits well with the people currently in power.

So, Faux news continues to lie to the point where their reporters are hazed if they even bother to show up near Wall Street. 

Because I care so much about the main stream media, I am going to do them a favor and list the top ten reasons why Obama has to pretend to empathize with the 99% while not getting any of their taint on Him:

1-8.  He's Wall Street's bitch.

9.     Faux news is already trying to say that the Tea Party is better than OWS because Tea Partiers don't get arrested.  Tea Partiers also don't get anything changed.

What a coincidence!

I know.

Every day that nothing is done to appease the protesters while beating them over the head with NYPD nightsticks brings this whole thing one day closer to massive violence.  If Obama cozies up to OWS and then it goes terribly awry, the Republicans will use that in the 2012 election.

"Yeah, we should be locked up in padded rooms but at least we aren't inciting violence."

10.   Obama has already alienated much of his base because of his hypocrisy* and getting behind the protesters today and then sending in the National Guard with water canons next week will only make this worse.  He would be giving the Republicans ammo while encouraging even more Democrat voters to stay home on voting day. 

He's stuck in a tough spot between the votes of the 99% and the money of the 1% and he has to walk a tightwire between them.

The media is missing or hiding a key message from OWS but I'm not going to go into now.  I'm sure there will be time.  It doesn't look like this is going to end any time soon.  I know that several people have hoped that snow will drive the protesters away but none of them have sounded too confident that it will actually happen.  With the EU collapsing, there's a good chance that this thing is just barely getting started.

No matter were it goes from here, the conversation and a search for real solutions has been started.  People are waking up.  That has always been the most critical factor.

* It's only hypocrisy if you actually believed Him in the first place.

I saw his lips moving.

Always a clue.