A more and more common sight:
Here is the issue:
The officer initiates contact
The subject of the contact indicates that she is not in violation and is in-fact the appropriate distance
The officer instigates by insisting that she move farther back (creating a situation where none existed)
The officer, seeing that this is going nowhere escalates further (under color of law) - demanding identification
The subject knowing her rights refuses based on the grounds that there was no reason for contact with the officer in the first place (illegal stop).
The officer arrests the subject and uses broad charges to justify harassment and abuse.
Result?
Subject injured despite there being no resisting arrest charge (possible excessive use of force)
Subject files lawsuit against the department
department reflexively denies
department still investigates (CYA: Cover Your Ass) just in-case their knee-jerk reaction is wrong.
There are many incidents like this and the list is growing day by day. There are several reasons why police behave in this manner and it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Police Officers/LEO's are a tribe much like the marines, or special forces; they are an insular group and everyone else is a potential threat. This is why the California officers were so freaked out about Dorner. He was one of them and then he became a threat from the inside. The American people are the enemy and our cities and rural areas are now widely regarded as battlefields.
Police Officers lack proper training: Here in my own state very few police officers know that a carry concealed permit also allows for open carry. As a result the legal advice to residents was to not carry open. This is wrong. You do not tell citizens to not engage in a legal activity because you are too lazy to train officers and their superiors on the law.
Federal Funds/Militarization of Police: Bad.
America is becoming a battlefield and our police forces are increasingly populated with mentally ill veterans and sociopaths who engage in manipulative power trips under the color of law and the guise of protecting people. Comply citizen, or get beaten like the chattel you are.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
The Continuing Snowden Revelations
ITS A CONSPIRACY!
No really...it is. But before digging in to the latest of the continuing reveals of exactly how far our intelligence services are overstepping their constitutional bounds let us take a travel back in time...not all that far to 2010. This Article can be viewed for context but the main crux of it is from a paper Cass Sunstein (President Obama's Head of Information and Regulatory Affairs...a fairly Kafkaesque-esque position if you ask me) wrote with a Harvard Professor, Adrian Vermuele, dealing with how government should respond to citizens distrust of government. The entire paper is publicly available HERE for you to read.
I refuse to take things out of context and Cassie here makes it quite easy to contextualize his statist attitude. His wife by the way is Samantha Power. She is a former journalist turned think tank fellow, turned Obama campaign advisor, turned State Department official. She published her own statist paper/thesis dealing with a concept she called "The Right to Protect". This entails using NATO/US/UN forces to intervene in 'humanitarian' crisis around the world based on the assumption that since we have a large military that we should use it for the benefit (as we see said benefit) to promote an open society/democracy/self-determination. Of course this open society thing is funded by George Soros and the Tides Foundation at large.
Much of this is interconnected via think-tanks and the continuous cycle from Academia to think-Tank to Govt feeding cycle. It is an intellectual version of the military industrial complex...rather it is the intellectual-industrial-complex. An interesting PDF can be found HERE on the number of think tanks in the USA. Make of it what you will. All of this dissembling may seem scattered but that is only because to explore the material in depth would require several books and leads down a rabbit hole so deep and twisting only the most dauntless of scholars or journalists would dare go down.
All one has to do to see the think tanks and though- shapers psychological warfare techniques are in operation is to wait for a significant event to occur and the security experts pop out of the woodwork. Some of them are CIA/NSA/ Private contractor plants and the rest are shills for the administration (whoever is in power). Their job is to deflect, discredit and destroy the opposition. No different than what Cass Sunstein advocates in his paper. One of the many symptoms of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration strategy that is easily visible takes place in the many commentary sections of online publications. There is always some racist bait or sexist or something there designed to take an illogical position aligned to the side that needs to be discredited before momentum is gained.
It is clever but diabolical. And so far reaching that few would believe it...until documents came out saying that it is exactly what happens. But 'tin foil hat' ITS A CONSPIRACY. Well technically it is exactly that. It is a concentrated group of people plotting to use their power against the larger group and influence them without their knowledge towards a goal that the concentrated group considers appropriate or beneficial...to their own selves and likely to the exclusion of others.
It is a thesis...turned actual plan. And it is the very definition of Kafkaesque. The machine is being designed to grind liberty into dust. A Semblance of Liberty
No really...it is. But before digging in to the latest of the continuing reveals of exactly how far our intelligence services are overstepping their constitutional bounds let us take a travel back in time...not all that far to 2010. This Article can be viewed for context but the main crux of it is from a paper Cass Sunstein (President Obama's Head of Information and Regulatory Affairs...a fairly Kafkaesque-esque position if you ask me) wrote with a Harvard Professor, Adrian Vermuele, dealing with how government should respond to citizens distrust of government. The entire paper is publicly available HERE for you to read.
I refuse to take things out of context and Cassie here makes it quite easy to contextualize his statist attitude. His wife by the way is Samantha Power. She is a former journalist turned think tank fellow, turned Obama campaign advisor, turned State Department official. She published her own statist paper/thesis dealing with a concept she called "The Right to Protect". This entails using NATO/US/UN forces to intervene in 'humanitarian' crisis around the world based on the assumption that since we have a large military that we should use it for the benefit (as we see said benefit) to promote an open society/democracy/self-determination. Of course this open society thing is funded by George Soros and the Tides Foundation at large.
Much of this is interconnected via think-tanks and the continuous cycle from Academia to think-Tank to Govt feeding cycle. It is an intellectual version of the military industrial complex...rather it is the intellectual-industrial-complex. An interesting PDF can be found HERE on the number of think tanks in the USA. Make of it what you will. All of this dissembling may seem scattered but that is only because to explore the material in depth would require several books and leads down a rabbit hole so deep and twisting only the most dauntless of scholars or journalists would dare go down.
All one has to do to see the think tanks and though- shapers psychological warfare techniques are in operation is to wait for a significant event to occur and the security experts pop out of the woodwork. Some of them are CIA/NSA/ Private contractor plants and the rest are shills for the administration (whoever is in power). Their job is to deflect, discredit and destroy the opposition. No different than what Cass Sunstein advocates in his paper. One of the many symptoms of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration strategy that is easily visible takes place in the many commentary sections of online publications. There is always some racist bait or sexist or something there designed to take an illogical position aligned to the side that needs to be discredited before momentum is gained.
It is clever but diabolical. And so far reaching that few would believe it...until documents came out saying that it is exactly what happens. But 'tin foil hat' ITS A CONSPIRACY. Well technically it is exactly that. It is a concentrated group of people plotting to use their power against the larger group and influence them without their knowledge towards a goal that the concentrated group considers appropriate or beneficial...to their own selves and likely to the exclusion of others.
It is a thesis...turned actual plan. And it is the very definition of Kafkaesque. The machine is being designed to grind liberty into dust. A Semblance of Liberty
Born to fight, and we're born to flee
Doomed to live on ecstasy
Born to lie, and we're born to cheat
Look in the mirror, who do you see?
Born to flee, and we're born to fight
Without your mask, you're terrified
Don't hide your personality
That's who you are, your identity
If the virtues of tomorrow
Cause the greed of today
We won't have a future
Nor liberty
Born to breathe, and we're born to pursue
That's all we are supposed to do
The semblance of our liberty
Is nothing more than slavery
Born to flee, and we're born to fight
Is it failure that's our delight?
Born to cheat, and we're born to lie
Look at yourself, have you lost your mind?
If the virtues of tomorrow
Cause the greed of today
We won't have a future
And no more liberty
If the virtues of tomorrow
Set the need on the way
We won't have a future nor liberty
Private vice leads to public virtue
[Laughs!]
Raised to think that we are free
Living in our caves
Being slaves
We lost control of our lives
At the mercy of the waves
Massive waves
Blind to see what's going on
Conditioned as we are
And we are
We lost control of our greed
But now we face it all
Face our fall
Keeping all that we've created
And consuming all that's possible
Reaching deep into temptation
Nothing can stop us
Guarantee our hard-earned profits
Multiplied ten-fold if possible
Reaching out for new redemption
Nothing avails our needs
My opponent won't rule out raising taxes.
But I will, and The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no.
And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say to them:
Read my lips
[George H. W. Bush]
If the virtues of tomorrow
Set the need on the way
We never had a future anyway
We had no future 'till today
Time and tide
Will not wait for anyone
Doomed to live on ecstasy
Born to lie, and we're born to cheat
Look in the mirror, who do you see?
Born to flee, and we're born to fight
Without your mask, you're terrified
Don't hide your personality
That's who you are, your identity
If the virtues of tomorrow
Cause the greed of today
We won't have a future
Nor liberty
Born to breathe, and we're born to pursue
That's all we are supposed to do
The semblance of our liberty
Is nothing more than slavery
Born to flee, and we're born to fight
Is it failure that's our delight?
Born to cheat, and we're born to lie
Look at yourself, have you lost your mind?
If the virtues of tomorrow
Cause the greed of today
We won't have a future
And no more liberty
If the virtues of tomorrow
Set the need on the way
We won't have a future nor liberty
Private vice leads to public virtue
[Laughs!]
Raised to think that we are free
Living in our caves
Being slaves
We lost control of our lives
At the mercy of the waves
Massive waves
Blind to see what's going on
Conditioned as we are
And we are
We lost control of our greed
But now we face it all
Face our fall
Keeping all that we've created
And consuming all that's possible
Reaching deep into temptation
Nothing can stop us
Guarantee our hard-earned profits
Multiplied ten-fold if possible
Reaching out for new redemption
Nothing avails our needs
My opponent won't rule out raising taxes.
But I will, and The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no.
And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say to them:
Read my lips
[George H. W. Bush]
If the virtues of tomorrow
Set the need on the way
We never had a future anyway
We had no future 'till today
Time and tide
Will not wait for anyone
Consider the lyrics and reflect.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Whats really going on in The Ukraine
The protests in The Ukraine have been growing over time and most of us simply put it in the back of our minds. The U.S. State Department however has put some interesting attention on it in the past few weeks driving the conflict forward.
First it is important to understand The Ukraine in a historical and Geographic sense.
The nation's name literally means 'Border' which is why it is called THE Ukraine. There are two major groups in the country. Those in the western third are Ukranian speaking and generally have closer ties to the E.U. community and the eastern third is Russian speaking with close ties to Moscow. This should be no surprise. Most people forget the Ukraine used to be a part of the Iron Curtain only two decades ago. that is only a single generation. So what is happening is partly based on historical ethnic/nationalist sentiment.
The other part is political and economical. Politically Russia wants to keep close ties to the Ukraine to stop the increasing encroachment of the NATO alliance (which was formed to counter Soviet power and now Russian influence during the Cold War...which ostensibly is still on-going if you ask me). The EU, where a vast majority of the member countries are NATO members or at least allies, is pushing for closer ties to the Ukraine and the current government in the Ukraine is resisting...preferring Moscow.
The Russian Federation is doing everything it can economically to buy support including massive natural gas price reductions for the Ukraine. On the other side the EU/USA/NATO alliance is supporting the 'activists'/'protesters' at least on the diplomatic side including a senior official passing out cookies to them. that in and of itself is hilarious because US diplomats are often referred to as cookie pushers from Harvard. Of course Vicky here manages to avoid the Harvard part of the stereotype...but it isn't a subversion of the trope...more of a parallel where its might as well be the same thing. Of course her part in the Benghazi cover-up and now showing up in the middle of the Ukraine-near-civil war makes one at least quirk an eyebrow at how one woman can keep popping up in areas at appear to be rapidly de-stabilizing.
At the same time Barack 'The Rock' Hussein Obama is warning the Ukrainian Govt (legitimately elected btw) to not use force against the so-called protesters. My question would be...or else what? Obviously it is a veiled threat of sanctions in the least and an armed intervention at worst under the guise of 'humanitarian assistance' or some such drivel.
So the answer to the question as to why this is happening is generally represented by Russian antipathy towards NATO and vice versa. There are more specific reasons that entail trans-national corporate interests and EU expansion desires. However it should be noted that there is likely a great deal of support for the protesters via operators from various intelligence agencies...or at least the assets that are distanced from the handlers that pass them messages and directives.
The protests have gone from chanting to gasoline bomb throwing, armory assaulting nigh-on-civil-war in the space of a couple weeks. All of this is despite the government showing considerably more restraint than any in the United States would given similar levels of violence. The only way that the government could be characterized as aggressive would be saying that...since it didn't simply give in to the mob of protesters...that alone is an aggressive act and...well you get the escalation almost purely one sided that we have today.
Its fun to watch from a distance...like a supernova.
Update: Speaking of George Soros and his open society initiative...
First it is important to understand The Ukraine in a historical and Geographic sense.
The nation's name literally means 'Border' which is why it is called THE Ukraine. There are two major groups in the country. Those in the western third are Ukranian speaking and generally have closer ties to the E.U. community and the eastern third is Russian speaking with close ties to Moscow. This should be no surprise. Most people forget the Ukraine used to be a part of the Iron Curtain only two decades ago. that is only a single generation. So what is happening is partly based on historical ethnic/nationalist sentiment.
The other part is political and economical. Politically Russia wants to keep close ties to the Ukraine to stop the increasing encroachment of the NATO alliance (which was formed to counter Soviet power and now Russian influence during the Cold War...which ostensibly is still on-going if you ask me). The EU, where a vast majority of the member countries are NATO members or at least allies, is pushing for closer ties to the Ukraine and the current government in the Ukraine is resisting...preferring Moscow.
The Russian Federation is doing everything it can economically to buy support including massive natural gas price reductions for the Ukraine. On the other side the EU/USA/NATO alliance is supporting the 'activists'/'protesters' at least on the diplomatic side including a senior official passing out cookies to them. that in and of itself is hilarious because US diplomats are often referred to as cookie pushers from Harvard. Of course Vicky here manages to avoid the Harvard part of the stereotype...but it isn't a subversion of the trope...more of a parallel where its might as well be the same thing. Of course her part in the Benghazi cover-up and now showing up in the middle of the Ukraine-near-civil war makes one at least quirk an eyebrow at how one woman can keep popping up in areas at appear to be rapidly de-stabilizing.
At the same time Barack 'The Rock' Hussein Obama is warning the Ukrainian Govt (legitimately elected btw) to not use force against the so-called protesters. My question would be...or else what? Obviously it is a veiled threat of sanctions in the least and an armed intervention at worst under the guise of 'humanitarian assistance' or some such drivel.
So the answer to the question as to why this is happening is generally represented by Russian antipathy towards NATO and vice versa. There are more specific reasons that entail trans-national corporate interests and EU expansion desires. However it should be noted that there is likely a great deal of support for the protesters via operators from various intelligence agencies...or at least the assets that are distanced from the handlers that pass them messages and directives.
The protests have gone from chanting to gasoline bomb throwing, armory assaulting nigh-on-civil-war in the space of a couple weeks. All of this is despite the government showing considerably more restraint than any in the United States would given similar levels of violence. The only way that the government could be characterized as aggressive would be saying that...since it didn't simply give in to the mob of protesters...that alone is an aggressive act and...well you get the escalation almost purely one sided that we have today.
Its fun to watch from a distance...like a supernova.
Update: Speaking of George Soros and his open society initiative...
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Oh look a thinly veiled hit piece by Dana Milbank!
HERE
Step 1) Open with a false premise
Step 2) Offer a meaningless fact
Step 3) Brief Narrative
Step 4) Jealous projection of authors own ego upon his target
Step 5) Profit?
Step 1) Open with a false premise
Step 2) Offer a meaningless fact
Step 3) Brief Narrative
Step 4) Jealous projection of authors own ego upon his target
Step 5) Profit?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Monkey See Monkey Do
As usual something in the news has struck me again...this time as simply being odd. Ok also stupid and additionally; entirely revealing. You can read the full article HERE for all proper context.
So Rep. James Clyburn (not a monkey) feels that it is somehow related to the MLK "Dream" speech to talk about the media being less than diligent in their abilities or willingness to report facts. I think at least with that summary most people agree...the media has a hard time at being unbiased in its reporting and is more often than not glib.
However...in speaking about Internet based media he claims that they often misquote people or simply quote people out of context. As if that is something new...and then he blames those "internet media types" for the corporate media (mainstream) not doing their own due diligence and simply running with an unverified story. So as he gets more and more off-track his thought train de-rails straight into godwin territory.
The quote in context (Hat Tip The Hill.com):
So to really get at Clyburn's point. You're a monkey and we (the government) need to do more to make sure that you get only one government issued and verified take on the days news. That way you will do what we want. This is all about control and not what is best for us as individuals. This is about creating more layers of bureaucracy and it is folly disguised as wisdom at best and at worst it is a strike against the first amendment... disguised as promoting truth.
So Rep. James Clyburn (not a monkey) feels that it is somehow related to the MLK "Dream" speech to talk about the media being less than diligent in their abilities or willingness to report facts. I think at least with that summary most people agree...the media has a hard time at being unbiased in its reporting and is more often than not glib.
However...in speaking about Internet based media he claims that they often misquote people or simply quote people out of context. As if that is something new...and then he blames those "internet media types" for the corporate media (mainstream) not doing their own due diligence and simply running with an unverified story. So as he gets more and more off-track his thought train de-rails straight into godwin territory.
The quote in context (Hat Tip The Hill.com):
So not only are the "New Media" (Internet media) disciples of Hitler who are intentionally misleading the masses and blaming the jews for everything, but they are somehow removing your ability to think critically and realize what is or is not foolish. Clyburn obviously feels that there is a growing need for government to do something about these dastardly internet types beyond his control. Already he has characterized bloggers as "not media people." So this is related to the discussion that our self-styled betters have been having about the "need" re: desire, to license media people federally so that they can carve out special protections for them and not for you and me. This was probably talked about for a long time but it was catalyzed by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and those who actually distributed the information Wikileaks (Julian Assange et. al. and The Guardian/ Glenn Greenwald...and now by extension his partner who was recently detained for 9 hours under a very broad and likely fraudulent use of an anti-terrorism statute).“The people of Germany believed Hitler’s foolishness that led to the Holocaust. They believed that stuff,” Clyburn said. “People will tend to believe what they hear through the media.”Clyburn singled out “extreme right-wing” bloggers in particular for criticism. He accused such bloggers of forcing Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture after misrepresenting statements she made to make her appear racially biased. He also said they had libeled the progressive group ACORN, leading to the group’s disbandment."Most of these people are not media people; they are bloggers, and they are bloggers for the extreme right wing," he said.“People tend to act now and ask questions later,” Clyburn added.He also said that President Obama was vulnerable to misrepresentation due to the media abdicating its responsibilities.“The media has not been discerning enough, in my opinion, to say to people, ‘This ain’t news. This is foolishness.”
So to really get at Clyburn's point. You're a monkey and we (the government) need to do more to make sure that you get only one government issued and verified take on the days news. That way you will do what we want. This is all about control and not what is best for us as individuals. This is about creating more layers of bureaucracy and it is folly disguised as wisdom at best and at worst it is a strike against the first amendment... disguised as promoting truth.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Andrea Mitchell is an ignorant slut
I know it sounds provocative but the title is simple a re purposing of a saturday night live quote by Dan Akroyd.
Of course the slut part is simply there for being outrageous but the ignorant part is true. In some recent comments about fiscal conservatives (where she is simply projecting) she makes some assumptions that should not be made.
Her argument falls this way: Fiscal conservatives should not want to spend money on border security because they don't want to spend money on things she wants money spent on. Therefore their argument is invalid. Her other argument is that the "statist-wing" of the republican party (re: McCain and friends) are heroic for their pursuit of the selling out of the United States, rather further selling out, to the corporate interests that want to keep depreciating wages.
Her asinine comments went right by the host (David Gregory) without even a request for clarification as it was mostly a baseless attack on people she disagrees with. I don't know what to say about Mr. Gregory except that he is clearly not interested in anything resembling the truth.
Most so-called fiscal conservatives read and understand the constitution differently from Mr. Gregory. They feel that the government ought only be spending money on their constitutionally specified roles. Border Security would be one of those...as would the armed forces and various other activities, but they do not tend to like programs like social security, food-stamp/EBT programs.
That is what really gets Ms. Mitchell's ire up. So instead of actually addressing the issue which is a difference of opinion on what government should be doing/ how it should be in our daily lives; she attacks her opponents based on a false premise that she herself...sets up. That was possibly one of the largest straw-man attacks in recent days. I wish I could hand her some sort of award for being a cunt.
Of course the slut part is simply there for being outrageous but the ignorant part is true. In some recent comments about fiscal conservatives (where she is simply projecting) she makes some assumptions that should not be made.
Her argument falls this way: Fiscal conservatives should not want to spend money on border security because they don't want to spend money on things she wants money spent on. Therefore their argument is invalid. Her other argument is that the "statist-wing" of the republican party (re: McCain and friends) are heroic for their pursuit of the selling out of the United States, rather further selling out, to the corporate interests that want to keep depreciating wages.
Her asinine comments went right by the host (David Gregory) without even a request for clarification as it was mostly a baseless attack on people she disagrees with. I don't know what to say about Mr. Gregory except that he is clearly not interested in anything resembling the truth.
Most so-called fiscal conservatives read and understand the constitution differently from Mr. Gregory. They feel that the government ought only be spending money on their constitutionally specified roles. Border Security would be one of those...as would the armed forces and various other activities, but they do not tend to like programs like social security, food-stamp/EBT programs.
That is what really gets Ms. Mitchell's ire up. So instead of actually addressing the issue which is a difference of opinion on what government should be doing/ how it should be in our daily lives; she attacks her opponents based on a false premise that she herself...sets up. That was possibly one of the largest straw-man attacks in recent days. I wish I could hand her some sort of award for being a cunt.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Inside The Insiders - A Meta-Game
For those of you that know me, you know I have played a MMO called EVE Online for the last nine years or so, though I have taken breaks. That isn't what this post is about, but it is relevant nonetheless. In EVE Online there is a sub-set of players that are almost purely social and use that part of the game to enrich themselves in in-game terms.
They are many times genial, friendly and seemingly open, but in reality a pack of glib sociopath assholes. They are the meta-game players. They climb a social ladder in an organization just high enough to get some form of privileged access so that they can through betrayal or subversion obtain more influence and power or get more money. We all know someone like this in real life and that is what this article is about.
In reaction to this article I felt it necessary to point out that another way of describing insider trading, political intelligence gathering or any other sort of related activity is meta-gaming. It covers a whole host of situations if you just frame it all as a game. Stock picking is a game just as much as EVE Online is and is vastly more lucrative. There is nothing honest about what goes on in Wall St. company fundamentals have little to do with stock price. Rather is is how people feel about the stock. If you meet your earnings projections...that doesn't mean you did a good job, rather people feel you are adequate. If you beat projections you are stellar and if you fail to meet them you are trashed and no one cares that you still made a profit. You are being gamed. If some person gains access to the information ahead of time and uses it to leverage one position or another or several at the same time ( a gambit ) they are not just hedging but finding a way to profit based on non-public information.
This is illegal in the United States. Now WHO do you think has the most inside of insiders information? Why Those who write the rules that everyone will have to follow. That would be the United States Congress and the executive branch that enforces those laws...who also has input into how those laws are 'shaped'. They seem distinctly pyramid shaped to me.
And all one has to do is look at what former congressmen are doing now.
Tom Daschle and Trent Lott
That is just one example. Those two always appeared to be on opposite sides but in reality were simply conspiring against their respective constituents for their own enrichment. One man, William Binney, described this process in the just the NSA alone as a feeding cycle between private and public where a department would get more funding so that a dept head could later leave government and get a job at the firm he had given contracts to. And the cycle of always getting a bigger budget would perpetuate itself. This happens across all sectors of the government and when it happens in purely private industries people usually end up going to jail because it is corruption, a violation of their oaths of office and might as well be a form of mafia. But those in power act like it is just a part of doing business. So if that conspiracy is true...just follow the money.
They are many times genial, friendly and seemingly open, but in reality a pack of glib sociopath assholes. They are the meta-game players. They climb a social ladder in an organization just high enough to get some form of privileged access so that they can through betrayal or subversion obtain more influence and power or get more money. We all know someone like this in real life and that is what this article is about.
In reaction to this article I felt it necessary to point out that another way of describing insider trading, political intelligence gathering or any other sort of related activity is meta-gaming. It covers a whole host of situations if you just frame it all as a game. Stock picking is a game just as much as EVE Online is and is vastly more lucrative. There is nothing honest about what goes on in Wall St. company fundamentals have little to do with stock price. Rather is is how people feel about the stock. If you meet your earnings projections...that doesn't mean you did a good job, rather people feel you are adequate. If you beat projections you are stellar and if you fail to meet them you are trashed and no one cares that you still made a profit. You are being gamed. If some person gains access to the information ahead of time and uses it to leverage one position or another or several at the same time ( a gambit ) they are not just hedging but finding a way to profit based on non-public information.
This is illegal in the United States. Now WHO do you think has the most inside of insiders information? Why Those who write the rules that everyone will have to follow. That would be the United States Congress and the executive branch that enforces those laws...who also has input into how those laws are 'shaped'. They seem distinctly pyramid shaped to me.
And all one has to do is look at what former congressmen are doing now.
Tom Daschle and Trent Lott
That is just one example. Those two always appeared to be on opposite sides but in reality were simply conspiring against their respective constituents for their own enrichment. One man, William Binney, described this process in the just the NSA alone as a feeding cycle between private and public where a department would get more funding so that a dept head could later leave government and get a job at the firm he had given contracts to. And the cycle of always getting a bigger budget would perpetuate itself. This happens across all sectors of the government and when it happens in purely private industries people usually end up going to jail because it is corruption, a violation of their oaths of office and might as well be a form of mafia. But those in power act like it is just a part of doing business. So if that conspiracy is true...just follow the money.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Darryl Issa is Sir Bedevere
When Congressman (R) Darryl Issa (CA) is dealing with the IRS scandal I can't help but imagine the conflict with Lois Lerner going something like the witch scene in Monty Python: Quest for the Holy Grail film. This woman has smartly invoked her 5th amendment right to not answer the question on the grounds that she may, without any intention to, implicate or incriminate herself.
Of course this isn't an actual judicial proceeding but she has good reason.
Those reasons are: President Obama meeting with liberal blogger Ezra Klein and one of the founders of talking points media. It is clear that these men are surrogates for the administration since sending out conventional operatives (Dan Pfeiffer and Jay Carney) failed to move the football down the field politically speaking.
Of course the Republicans are none too interested in solving this problem either. They are focusing on Lois Lerner (who exposed this entire thing) rather than the people actually responsible for the bad and possibly illegal conduct. so while many of these indignant and righteous men point fingers and scold whoever is in front of them...they do nothing as lawmakers to solve the problem.
They could: defund the IRS tomorrow if they so wished.
They could: abolish the IRS and institute a new flat/fair tax scheme and/or national sales tax.
They could pass legislation creating a special council/investigator who has the powers to investigate and subpoena individuals, documents and whatever else is needed to create an actual case. They could do this with Benghazi...defund the CIA/DIA/NRO/NSA until answers are gotten. That is...if congress were serious about making things better.
They may get a special prosecutor for the IRS. They won't defund it, they won't rewrite the tax code, they won't upset the balance that the status quo is. The IRS is their weapon. It is a blunt instrument to keep us all in line and to separate us from one another by our incomes. Envy is a powerful weapon. Lois Lerner is made of wood and she shall indeed float...that is until she drowns.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
You say what?
Today on CBS Face the Nation, noted liberal journolisto and show host Bob Schieffer spent a good amount of time grilling White House advisor (re: propaganda artist) Dan Pfeiffer. Most of the time the interview was really going against Mr. Pfeiffer in terms of host attitude. However the final exchange is notable.
DAN PFEIFFER: Well, let-- let's start with Susan Rice. She went out-- Ambassador Rice went out that day, and represented the administration and spoke to what happened with the best information we had, that everyone in the administration had, was what she looked at. And that was the consensus of the intelligence community. What we do is we want to go out and speak to the problems as they happened. And what's important here is that when problems happen is that the President takes responsibility for them and tries to fix them. And that's what-- that's what we're talking about in Benghazi because you're right, that is an absolute tragedy what happened. And the question isn't who edited what talking points. That-- that's largely irrelevant. What is relevant is what are we going to do to make sure that never happens again which is why President is calling on Congress to pass legislation to beef up embassy security around the world and protect our diplomats who, by their very-- the definition of their jobs are existing environment of risks.
It takes only until the second sentence to lie. Susan Rice did not present the best information they had at that point, though she did represent the administration admirably. She fell on that sword good and hard. That was supposed to end it and shield the President. Nothing she said was part of the consensus of the intelligence community. So far Dan has lied at least twice baldly on air. The President took zero responsibility as the blame game was played between agencies for the last six months...lie number three. (don't pay attention to who edited the talking points)...Is this real or am I in Oz?
Then he tells the host to pay attention to the new legislation they want to pass...as if the law was the problem in the first place and not terrible decision making. Oh and by the way he manages to point out that these ambassadors put themselves at risk...y'know its kinda his fault he died...he knew what he was signing up for and probably deserved it.
Now the interview ends likely as a matter of time constraint...but in a sort of odd way considering how contentious it was. Mind you Bob Schieffer was apologizing the entire time for possibly seeming argumentative. Well he SHOULD be confrontational. But he was letting Dan know that he wanted to be on his side...but that he couldn't see a rationale for it...and he was asking for one to be given to him...something he can stomach.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But what I'm saying to you is-- to you is that was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don't know yet? Why didn't White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?
It takes only until the second sentence to lie. Susan Rice did not present the best information they had at that point, though she did represent the administration admirably. She fell on that sword good and hard. That was supposed to end it and shield the President. Nothing she said was part of the consensus of the intelligence community. So far Dan has lied at least twice baldly on air. The President took zero responsibility as the blame game was played between agencies for the last six months...lie number three. (don't pay attention to who edited the talking points)...Is this real or am I in Oz?
Then he tells the host to pay attention to the new legislation they want to pass...as if the law was the problem in the first place and not terrible decision making. Oh and by the way he manages to point out that these ambassadors put themselves at risk...y'know its kinda his fault he died...he knew what he was signing up for and probably deserved it.
Now the interview ends likely as a matter of time constraint...but in a sort of odd way considering how contentious it was. Mind you Bob Schieffer was apologizing the entire time for possibly seeming argumentative. Well he SHOULD be confrontational. But he was letting Dan know that he wanted to be on his side...but that he couldn't see a rationale for it...and he was asking for one to be given to him...something he can stomach.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to thank you for coming this morning. I know this is not an easy job. I mean, do you kind of feel like someone who drew the black bean here? You're the one that has to go out and try to explain?
DAN PFEIFFER: Oh, no. It's-- it's a privilege to be here with you, Bob.
So all is well that ends well eh?
Bob asked hard questions, but fails to call the guest on his absolute lies, his gas-lighting psychological warfare on the audience. He admits that Rice's talking points were not accurate...but then says it was the best information they had. Spinning 180 within a matter of seconds must be his specialty. Pretty amazing that he's considered a credible person.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The Case Against The IRS
The IRS was created in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson as the enforcement wing of the US Treasury Department in order to facilitate the Income Tax legislation that was passed following the ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Part of the PR campaign that went with the passage of the 16th amendment was that it would never target the average citizen and was only to be applicable to the wealthiest among us. The top rate in 1913 was 7% (those earning half a million dollars or more). Later, rates would rise dramatically up to 67% by 1917 and have fluctuated wildly ever since. However, regardless of the rates applied the Us Government has rarely ever actually captured revenue exceeding 18% of GDP. In fact, according to the World Bank, The US government only captured 10% of GDP on average in the last few years. That is despite all tax rates being quite a bit higher than 10% currently.
The current scandal involving the targeting of individuals and groups based on political ideology is not new and has gone on since the IRS was founded. FDR was famous for using it as a weapon against political adversaries including those who formerly had supported him like Father Coughlin ( a raging catholic liberal ). Is it illegal? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The IRS targeting Al Capone is what put him away and many criminals get ensnared by the vigilance of the agents at the IRS. Of course this mkes me think about renaming them TED (Tax Enforcement Directorate). The name has a certain authoritarian ring to it and at least more accurately describes what the organization is designed to do.
If the what the IRS did was in-fact illegal, then not only should agents and leadership lose their jobs and go to jail (as you or I would for say...assault, tortious interference, perhaps use anti-stalking laws or other statutes to put them away).
However the real scandal so far is that no one is seeing the obvious solution to the problem. if the IRS is being used as a weapon and no political head of state can be trusted to run it (here's looking at you all Presidents since and including Wilson). Then we have to take that weapon away. That is abolish the IRS. Start a new subdivision of the Dept. of the Treasury and call it whatever you want...but not IRS. Throw out the US tax code in its entirety where it would apply to individuals (businesses are a different issue and far more complicated).
Repeal the 16th amendment on the grounds that it is too broad and open for abuse. Amend the constitution to allow for a flat (not progressive) income tax rate to be set by the US House by a simple majority (51%) and only allow the senate to confirm or reject said rate without changing the rate itself as all of this must originate in the House.
As a result of the new flat tax, there would be no deductions, allowances, or loopholes. There would also be no requirement to report income via a filing mechanism. Legislation can be passed requiring the employer to electronically withhold the amount and it be transmitted via EFT (electronic funds transfer) to the US Treasury upon each pay period. In your check you would see only that tax (Social Security/medicare/medicaid would be taken out before taxes in my scheme to reduce the tax hit).
The amount of time and money saved would be staggering. And the best part is that there would be no ability to socially engineer society with taxes, to use them punitively or as a form of information gathering by political entities on their enemies.
When it comes to businesses one would have to allow for them to deduct all of their expenses against revenue and only tax profit. All auditing assets would be focused on the business community rather than on families and individuals. Business rates would also be flat whether a business is a C Corp, S Corp, Pass-Through Entity (sole proprietorship/DBA/Partnership/LLC/LLP etc.). It would be a separately set rate from the individual income tax, but done through the same electronic system wherein at a given timer period the taxes would be paid based upon receipts. Most businesses file quarterly reports and that would seem a prudent method.
Of course these measures would also eliminate the distinction of the capital gains tax...which would be folded under the individual income tax...which means that the rate would likely rise by 2-5% from its current level of 15%. Tax exempt trusts would only be considered tax exempt for the current generation, that is with the current generation's passing away it would be taxed going further. So let us take the Kennedy's as an example (could just as easily use the Bush's), They have a tax free trust that allows them to live off the interest only like with municipal bonds or treasury certificates. When the eldest member of the family passes away, the next eldest who would receive the monies for the family would not receive it in a tax free manner, but rather pay an income tax like everyone else.
The time for making distinctions between citizens has come and gone. We must stand united against being divided by those who seek power. This is a tough complicated issue and it requires hard critical thinking by the US Congress because it is up to them to fund the operations of the US Government. So they must come up with a rate that is neither too high nor too low and also delivers to them the revenue necessary to adequately fund the governments constitutional activities.
That may mean however that the government's raw size for the second time in our entire history would decrease..and that means a lot of federal employees out of work. Many of them military. So Congress should see it as its duty to set aside funding for job training/retraining and even job placement centers for these people as we transition. It should be seen as our duty to do this for the military especially. The Federal government should not be seen as a jobs program writ large but as a mechanism for governance and so much of what is done falls outside of that or is well overspent. Simply examine all of the recent government loans to "green" industries that have failed, or the past frauds of the military credit cards, the continuing fraud in medicare/caid/SSI/Disability and the coming fraud that will consume the Affordable Care Act...written largely by the insurance companies themselves (yes that is why your premiums are rising massively).
Our representatives have ceased to believe in the implied fiduciary duty they have to the tax payers and constituents in the districts that gave them the job. There is no sense of honor left except among a few and even those few do not have enough bravery to push for an audacious change like this. This post barely scrapes what would have to be addressed, never mind the political interests from all sides that like having their own niche carved out. No more weaponization of taxation.
Part of the PR campaign that went with the passage of the 16th amendment was that it would never target the average citizen and was only to be applicable to the wealthiest among us. The top rate in 1913 was 7% (those earning half a million dollars or more). Later, rates would rise dramatically up to 67% by 1917 and have fluctuated wildly ever since. However, regardless of the rates applied the Us Government has rarely ever actually captured revenue exceeding 18% of GDP. In fact, according to the World Bank, The US government only captured 10% of GDP on average in the last few years. That is despite all tax rates being quite a bit higher than 10% currently.
The current scandal involving the targeting of individuals and groups based on political ideology is not new and has gone on since the IRS was founded. FDR was famous for using it as a weapon against political adversaries including those who formerly had supported him like Father Coughlin ( a raging catholic liberal ). Is it illegal? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The IRS targeting Al Capone is what put him away and many criminals get ensnared by the vigilance of the agents at the IRS. Of course this mkes me think about renaming them TED (Tax Enforcement Directorate). The name has a certain authoritarian ring to it and at least more accurately describes what the organization is designed to do.
If the what the IRS did was in-fact illegal, then not only should agents and leadership lose their jobs and go to jail (as you or I would for say...assault, tortious interference, perhaps use anti-stalking laws or other statutes to put them away).
However the real scandal so far is that no one is seeing the obvious solution to the problem. if the IRS is being used as a weapon and no political head of state can be trusted to run it (here's looking at you all Presidents since and including Wilson). Then we have to take that weapon away. That is abolish the IRS. Start a new subdivision of the Dept. of the Treasury and call it whatever you want...but not IRS. Throw out the US tax code in its entirety where it would apply to individuals (businesses are a different issue and far more complicated).
Repeal the 16th amendment on the grounds that it is too broad and open for abuse. Amend the constitution to allow for a flat (not progressive) income tax rate to be set by the US House by a simple majority (51%) and only allow the senate to confirm or reject said rate without changing the rate itself as all of this must originate in the House.
As a result of the new flat tax, there would be no deductions, allowances, or loopholes. There would also be no requirement to report income via a filing mechanism. Legislation can be passed requiring the employer to electronically withhold the amount and it be transmitted via EFT (electronic funds transfer) to the US Treasury upon each pay period. In your check you would see only that tax (Social Security/medicare/medicaid would be taken out before taxes in my scheme to reduce the tax hit).
The amount of time and money saved would be staggering. And the best part is that there would be no ability to socially engineer society with taxes, to use them punitively or as a form of information gathering by political entities on their enemies.
When it comes to businesses one would have to allow for them to deduct all of their expenses against revenue and only tax profit. All auditing assets would be focused on the business community rather than on families and individuals. Business rates would also be flat whether a business is a C Corp, S Corp, Pass-Through Entity (sole proprietorship/DBA/Partnership/LLC/LLP etc.). It would be a separately set rate from the individual income tax, but done through the same electronic system wherein at a given timer period the taxes would be paid based upon receipts. Most businesses file quarterly reports and that would seem a prudent method.
Of course these measures would also eliminate the distinction of the capital gains tax...which would be folded under the individual income tax...which means that the rate would likely rise by 2-5% from its current level of 15%. Tax exempt trusts would only be considered tax exempt for the current generation, that is with the current generation's passing away it would be taxed going further. So let us take the Kennedy's as an example (could just as easily use the Bush's), They have a tax free trust that allows them to live off the interest only like with municipal bonds or treasury certificates. When the eldest member of the family passes away, the next eldest who would receive the monies for the family would not receive it in a tax free manner, but rather pay an income tax like everyone else.
The time for making distinctions between citizens has come and gone. We must stand united against being divided by those who seek power. This is a tough complicated issue and it requires hard critical thinking by the US Congress because it is up to them to fund the operations of the US Government. So they must come up with a rate that is neither too high nor too low and also delivers to them the revenue necessary to adequately fund the governments constitutional activities.
That may mean however that the government's raw size for the second time in our entire history would decrease..and that means a lot of federal employees out of work. Many of them military. So Congress should see it as its duty to set aside funding for job training/retraining and even job placement centers for these people as we transition. It should be seen as our duty to do this for the military especially. The Federal government should not be seen as a jobs program writ large but as a mechanism for governance and so much of what is done falls outside of that or is well overspent. Simply examine all of the recent government loans to "green" industries that have failed, or the past frauds of the military credit cards, the continuing fraud in medicare/caid/SSI/Disability and the coming fraud that will consume the Affordable Care Act...written largely by the insurance companies themselves (yes that is why your premiums are rising massively).
Our representatives have ceased to believe in the implied fiduciary duty they have to the tax payers and constituents in the districts that gave them the job. There is no sense of honor left except among a few and even those few do not have enough bravery to push for an audacious change like this. This post barely scrapes what would have to be addressed, never mind the political interests from all sides that like having their own niche carved out. No more weaponization of taxation.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Boston - Consequences: An Analysis
The twin bombings at the Boston Marathon are a tragic event and of course it brings out all of the politicians to capitalize on the event for their own ends.
Barney Frank: "In this terrible situation, let's be very grateful that we had a well-funded, functioning government. It is very fashionable in America, and has been for some time to criticize government, belittle public employees, talk about their pensions, talk about what people think ... of [their] health care. Here we saw government in two ways perform very well. ... I never was as a member of Congress one of the cheerleaders for less government, lower taxes. No tax cut would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover. This is very expensive."
David Axlerod: And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this. It was tax day. Is it someone who was pro-[unintelligible]? You just don't know. And so, I think, his attitude is let's not put any inference into this. Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible.
Well that certainly isn't suspicious rhetoric at all. One is bloviating on why taxes are good and you should pay more and the other is implying that beause it was tax day that it *may* have been pro-tax cut/libertarians/right-wing militia types that would have done this. He stops himself but not before the suggestion is in people's minds by inference.
For now that takes care of the politics. Time for the reality.
The FBI had a "drill" going on at the start and finish lines with bomb sniffing dogs and they were announcing to the public that it was a drill. Y'know to keep people from panicking. And then of course bombs ACTUALLY (not a drill) go off. This makes the facade of a drill drop. They had to have had a tip on solid information as to there being bombs, but no information as to exact location of said bombs. So They decided to try and have their cake and eat it too. They tried to keep the event going and still be heroes.
The simple explanation is that the FBI screwed up and should have evacuated the start and finish areas and cordoned it off so they could find the weapons easier than in the throngs of the crowd. But instead of prioritizing civilian lives they prioritized the bombs and the person planting said bombs. The marathon goers were nothing but bait and if there is anything to learn about law enforcement...you're cattle, bait so they can catch the criminal. Casualties are expected and simply the cost of doing business so to speak.
One would theorize that if they evacuated the area they might have scared off the person planting the weapons and the event would have simply happened later and they would have been even more off guard. Like at the Japanese Cherry Blossom Festival or some other event. From the intelligence analysis side this was an opportunity to get more intelligence and track things back more. From a public service side this was a failure of leadership/wrongful prioritization of short-term intelligence gain over public safety.
The FBI has a duty to come clean on this entire matter to clear itself with the public, but as one can see from above that the spin machine is already out and in full force to deflect attention from scrutiny and misdirect attention towards other entities to either obfuscate/deflect blame or frame-up an unrelated organization due to political unpopularity.
This is all based on a lack of malice by our own government and not everyone is as charitable as I am. The FBI was simply incompetent with zero leadership.
Good luck Boston.
Barney Frank: "In this terrible situation, let's be very grateful that we had a well-funded, functioning government. It is very fashionable in America, and has been for some time to criticize government, belittle public employees, talk about their pensions, talk about what people think ... of [their] health care. Here we saw government in two ways perform very well. ... I never was as a member of Congress one of the cheerleaders for less government, lower taxes. No tax cut would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover. This is very expensive."
David Axlerod: And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this. It was tax day. Is it someone who was pro-[unintelligible]? You just don't know. And so, I think, his attitude is let's not put any inference into this. Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible.
Well that certainly isn't suspicious rhetoric at all. One is bloviating on why taxes are good and you should pay more and the other is implying that beause it was tax day that it *may* have been pro-tax cut/libertarians/right-wing militia types that would have done this. He stops himself but not before the suggestion is in people's minds by inference.
For now that takes care of the politics. Time for the reality.
The FBI had a "drill" going on at the start and finish lines with bomb sniffing dogs and they were announcing to the public that it was a drill. Y'know to keep people from panicking. And then of course bombs ACTUALLY (not a drill) go off. This makes the facade of a drill drop. They had to have had a tip on solid information as to there being bombs, but no information as to exact location of said bombs. So They decided to try and have their cake and eat it too. They tried to keep the event going and still be heroes.
The simple explanation is that the FBI screwed up and should have evacuated the start and finish areas and cordoned it off so they could find the weapons easier than in the throngs of the crowd. But instead of prioritizing civilian lives they prioritized the bombs and the person planting said bombs. The marathon goers were nothing but bait and if there is anything to learn about law enforcement...you're cattle, bait so they can catch the criminal. Casualties are expected and simply the cost of doing business so to speak.
One would theorize that if they evacuated the area they might have scared off the person planting the weapons and the event would have simply happened later and they would have been even more off guard. Like at the Japanese Cherry Blossom Festival or some other event. From the intelligence analysis side this was an opportunity to get more intelligence and track things back more. From a public service side this was a failure of leadership/wrongful prioritization of short-term intelligence gain over public safety.
The FBI has a duty to come clean on this entire matter to clear itself with the public, but as one can see from above that the spin machine is already out and in full force to deflect attention from scrutiny and misdirect attention towards other entities to either obfuscate/deflect blame or frame-up an unrelated organization due to political unpopularity.
This is all based on a lack of malice by our own government and not everyone is as charitable as I am. The FBI was simply incompetent with zero leadership.
Good luck Boston.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
MASS STABBING BAN ALL KNIVES
HERE
- Clearly easy access to knives is to blame, and knives over a certain length (capable of piercing the skin) should be banned.
- Knife makers need to be more responsible and not design these "assault" knives.
- The government also needs to register all knife owners and all knives need to be registered in a national database.
- Also you need a license to own a knife capable of cutting flesh. All schools and government building will now be knife free zones (yes even the plastic ones....they can be sharpened on table edges and made into shivs)
- Ahh hell ban all pointy things.
Reasonable people agree that this is the answer to the problem.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
You don't say!
So I am up late as usual and I caught the tail end of an episode of the Rachel (I'm a lesbian can't you tell) Maddow show. She happened to be doing a piece on the growing limitations on abortions and abortion access in several of the states.
The piece goes on to talk about the difficulties faced by the employees and the legal and physical challenges (threats) they face simply for exercising their "consitutional rights".
That's funny to me because it is the same crowd that wants to restrict explicitly stated constitutional rights or remove them altogether when it comes to firearms in the hands of private law-abiding citizens. Abortion isn't a right per se but like other medical procedures it is your right to privately choose to undergo the procedure.
Freedom! but not for you because I disagree with you!
The piece goes on to talk about the difficulties faced by the employees and the legal and physical challenges (threats) they face simply for exercising their "consitutional rights".
That's funny to me because it is the same crowd that wants to restrict explicitly stated constitutional rights or remove them altogether when it comes to firearms in the hands of private law-abiding citizens. Abortion isn't a right per se but like other medical procedures it is your right to privately choose to undergo the procedure.
Freedom! but not for you because I disagree with you!
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Deranged
The current debate about gun control is quite heated and I for one feel that it is getting out of hand. The supreme law of the land currently guarantees you (a citizen of the USA) the right to keep and bear arms. This right can be revoked through due process as it is many times for violent offenders. In-fact any right can be revoked through the use of due process in our court system. Many felons can no longer vote. It does strike me as odd that politicians would want to give the right to vote to criminals, but don't want the average citizen who is law abiding to have a weapon for self/state/national defense.
The 2nd amendment is there to give functionality to form an infantry based army in what was a decentralized nation. There were no satellite communications, nor were there telephone/telegraph lines at the founding. The states were considered more important than Washington D.C. by most people as that was the government closest to them and was most involved in their daily lives. Between the Civil War and WWI (The Great War) there were many changes sociologically. We began to see each other as part of one nation...and not as a Virginian, or a man who is from Massachusetts. We still had some regional divides, but by and large the Civil war period followed by the first world war and the advent of telegraph and telephone/radio communications began to bring us closer together.
The United States had always had a standing army of some kind, but not on such a massive scale as we have it today. It was never designed to have a massive standing army, rather we were supposed to have citizen soldiers who would be called up (drafted), or their militia units would be incorporated into the larger army structure for a war. WWI was the last real period of demilitarization on the part of the USA. Some of this is for "practical" reasons of being able to respond quickly, and there are also more dubious reasons. Mostly our military power was used to maintain the global status quo and for the United States to supplant the United Kingdom as the dominant "empire" in the world. Much like Rome with its growing military during its imperial period, it will be unsustainable for us as out nation was designed as a Republic.
The increased rapidity of events means that more centralization became necessary if only for functionality at the bureaucratic level. As for militias, the militias were essentially folded into the structure of the National Guard in 1903 (just prior to WWI). Most of those units are still based in their home states as a militia unit would be. They are however unified in a command structure nationally. They receive Federal funding and are considered federal employees (not state). So having said all of this that would mean that any citizen who owns a firearm (at least within a certain age group) could be expected to be called up to serve for a period of years and trained. The selective service program which all USA males are lawfully obligated at the age of 18 to participate in is an example of how this is actually executed. The US. Govt draws up a database of eligible people and presses them into service. The Second Amendment indicates that this is true. The states also have primary claim on the natioanl guard and those units are the LAST to be deployed in any martial action. Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard. The reasons are two-fold. 1) Economically you don't wanna rip away every able bodied person from his or her job. 2) Socially it is disruptive.
So, back to why you have the right to own a military class weapon (SEE ABOVE). It was expected that a citizen would be able to afford a basic infantry weapon of his or her era. So in addition to being able to defend one's self and property, one could also defray some of the hardware cost that the militia would incur. Any organized armed force would have heavy weapons (like cannons, artillery, mortars etc.) that are impractical for individual use, maintenance and storage. A rifle/musket/semi-auto or full auto rifle would be considered by many at least practical for storage and maintenance even if he or she does not enjoy using it. It would have also been expected for fathers to train their sons in the proper respect, use and maintenance for the weapon. To lend some credence to this there was a great amount of talk about virtue being the core of the new republic and that without many citizens possessing such an attribute that the republic would be more or less doomed.
The idea of whether or not a person "needs" an assault rifle or semi auto pistol or whatever is beyond the scope of the governments authority to interpret what a citizen may feel he or she requires. It is a citizen's absolute RIGHT to keep and bear (possess and lawfully use) arms. This would seemingly not be restricted to firearms, but include other types of weaponry as well as arms is a generic term for any and all weapons including swords, maces, clubs, pepper spray, knives and other types that I won't bother naming. It would be up to the state to regulate how they chose to monitor possession of those items but outright bans have happened in some cases for things like brass knuckles and the like. It would be a fun legal challenge to have it overturned.
Need of a weapon is irrelevant to the language of the constitution, whereas your rights are what are spoken about. Whenever someone (politician or pundit/think-tank representative) speaks about "need" or "fairness" the person speaking about it is being disingenuous. That speaker is injecting his or her own opinion as to what he or she would have and projecting it onto each and every citizen. This is the authoritarian take on the situation. Many of these people send their children to private schools which have private armed security forces or have body guards hired to protect them...but god forbid each and every citizen be able to defend themselves. *I'm looking at you Mr. Dershowitz**Peter Jennings**President Obama**Glenn Beck* etc. You can name any number of people who find it fine to have armed body guards, but you, the lowly citizen, must wait for the police to find your dead body.
Enough is enough. If you do not want a weapon...then simply do not buy one. If you want to own one you have the responsibility to get the proper training in use, maintenance and licensing (where required by law). When a person commits a crime, the weapon is evidence but it is not charged with the crime because it is simply a tool with no conscience and it does not similarly remove one's rights. Example: The Right to free speech is not lost or given up by anyone even though a person may engage in libelous or defamatory activities. We don't talk about restricting speech further, the party responsible is dealt with through the legal system and it is resolved. We should be so mature about all violations of our rights not just the ones that we agree with on some gut level.
The 2nd amendment is there to give functionality to form an infantry based army in what was a decentralized nation. There were no satellite communications, nor were there telephone/telegraph lines at the founding. The states were considered more important than Washington D.C. by most people as that was the government closest to them and was most involved in their daily lives. Between the Civil War and WWI (The Great War) there were many changes sociologically. We began to see each other as part of one nation...and not as a Virginian, or a man who is from Massachusetts. We still had some regional divides, but by and large the Civil war period followed by the first world war and the advent of telegraph and telephone/radio communications began to bring us closer together.
The United States had always had a standing army of some kind, but not on such a massive scale as we have it today. It was never designed to have a massive standing army, rather we were supposed to have citizen soldiers who would be called up (drafted), or their militia units would be incorporated into the larger army structure for a war. WWI was the last real period of demilitarization on the part of the USA. Some of this is for "practical" reasons of being able to respond quickly, and there are also more dubious reasons. Mostly our military power was used to maintain the global status quo and for the United States to supplant the United Kingdom as the dominant "empire" in the world. Much like Rome with its growing military during its imperial period, it will be unsustainable for us as out nation was designed as a Republic.
The increased rapidity of events means that more centralization became necessary if only for functionality at the bureaucratic level. As for militias, the militias were essentially folded into the structure of the National Guard in 1903 (just prior to WWI). Most of those units are still based in their home states as a militia unit would be. They are however unified in a command structure nationally. They receive Federal funding and are considered federal employees (not state). So having said all of this that would mean that any citizen who owns a firearm (at least within a certain age group) could be expected to be called up to serve for a period of years and trained. The selective service program which all USA males are lawfully obligated at the age of 18 to participate in is an example of how this is actually executed. The US. Govt draws up a database of eligible people and presses them into service. The Second Amendment indicates that this is true. The states also have primary claim on the natioanl guard and those units are the LAST to be deployed in any martial action. Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard. The reasons are two-fold. 1) Economically you don't wanna rip away every able bodied person from his or her job. 2) Socially it is disruptive.
So, back to why you have the right to own a military class weapon (SEE ABOVE). It was expected that a citizen would be able to afford a basic infantry weapon of his or her era. So in addition to being able to defend one's self and property, one could also defray some of the hardware cost that the militia would incur. Any organized armed force would have heavy weapons (like cannons, artillery, mortars etc.) that are impractical for individual use, maintenance and storage. A rifle/musket/semi-auto or full auto rifle would be considered by many at least practical for storage and maintenance even if he or she does not enjoy using it. It would have also been expected for fathers to train their sons in the proper respect, use and maintenance for the weapon. To lend some credence to this there was a great amount of talk about virtue being the core of the new republic and that without many citizens possessing such an attribute that the republic would be more or less doomed.
The idea of whether or not a person "needs" an assault rifle or semi auto pistol or whatever is beyond the scope of the governments authority to interpret what a citizen may feel he or she requires. It is a citizen's absolute RIGHT to keep and bear (possess and lawfully use) arms. This would seemingly not be restricted to firearms, but include other types of weaponry as well as arms is a generic term for any and all weapons including swords, maces, clubs, pepper spray, knives and other types that I won't bother naming. It would be up to the state to regulate how they chose to monitor possession of those items but outright bans have happened in some cases for things like brass knuckles and the like. It would be a fun legal challenge to have it overturned.
Need of a weapon is irrelevant to the language of the constitution, whereas your rights are what are spoken about. Whenever someone (politician or pundit/think-tank representative) speaks about "need" or "fairness" the person speaking about it is being disingenuous. That speaker is injecting his or her own opinion as to what he or she would have and projecting it onto each and every citizen. This is the authoritarian take on the situation. Many of these people send their children to private schools which have private armed security forces or have body guards hired to protect them...but god forbid each and every citizen be able to defend themselves. *I'm looking at you Mr. Dershowitz**Peter Jennings**President Obama**Glenn Beck* etc. You can name any number of people who find it fine to have armed body guards, but you, the lowly citizen, must wait for the police to find your dead body.
Enough is enough. If you do not want a weapon...then simply do not buy one. If you want to own one you have the responsibility to get the proper training in use, maintenance and licensing (where required by law). When a person commits a crime, the weapon is evidence but it is not charged with the crime because it is simply a tool with no conscience and it does not similarly remove one's rights. Example: The Right to free speech is not lost or given up by anyone even though a person may engage in libelous or defamatory activities. We don't talk about restricting speech further, the party responsible is dealt with through the legal system and it is resolved. We should be so mature about all violations of our rights not just the ones that we agree with on some gut level.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Paul Krugman is a massive retard
Dear Paul,
In your recent article (linked HERE) you seem to conflate two things that aren't necessarily connected. That is high tax rates and prosperity/individual income growth. The taxes weren't being redistributed in the 1950's ->70's. At least not in the manner we talk about today.
Here are things you fail to mention:
In your recent article (linked HERE) you seem to conflate two things that aren't necessarily connected. That is high tax rates and prosperity/individual income growth. The taxes weren't being redistributed in the 1950's ->70's. At least not in the manner we talk about today.
Here are things you fail to mention:
- US Economic Boom due to rebuilding Europe post WW2
- Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Project (new valuable infrastructure making commerce easier)
- We created NASA and went to the Moon and created many new technological innovations along the way.
- Computers went from industrial to home/business use
- US rebuilding Japan and much of south east Asia.
That is just a few matters. Primarily what you will notice is that we were producing tangible things and large volumes of durable goods and exporting them. Our trade deficit was a surplus...until 1975 which was the last time the USA had a trade surplus where exports were greater than imports.
Paul. You're far to glib and people who take you at your word are idiots.
It is a shame you won't read this.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
How YOU doin?
Jill...Jill, you're hot and you know it. Broadwell clearly felt threatened by your behavior in some way. Which is interesting now that the FBI agent you roped into this investigation is now off the case for being "obsessed" with you. This is very interesting indeed. You're an 'unpaid social liaison at MacDill AFB. That title can mean that you run bake sales...or that you sleep with every officer in sight and you get off on the whole guys in uniform thing.
I tend to believe both of those things to be true. Here's why. You are married to a doctor who is in high demand for his surgical skills and technique and who must be busy a large portion of the time leaving you free to cavort all over town. This town HAPPENS to have many single testosterone filled men wearing uniforms and they are quite a bit more physically fit than her husband.
So she's a social butterfly with too much time on her hands and men all around her. He's working all the time. Let us see where this train of thought takes us. She is socially adept so she picks up on body language clues better than most so I'm betting she knows how to manipulate men pretty well. She may have done nothing but smile suggestively at Petraeus or Gen. Allen (clearly more than smile at Allen), but nonetheless Broadwell (herself a hussy) recognized those games Kelley was playing and got all defensive about HER MAN. And so the walls they came a tumblin' down.
Jill is the weak link here because she's an attention whore. That is why she volunteers on a base full of horny, young, physically fit men. So, Dr. I suggest getting yourself an STD screening about now. Additionally there is no way that a trained FBI agent suddenly becomes obsessed with Jill Kelley. No way. She has obviously set him up for the fall after she was done using him for her own ends. She's a manipulative sociopath at the least.
The photo above is Jill with her husband, the Doctor. She is faced away from him in the photo which to me suggests that she's saying..."I'm married to him but not really with him." Even if she never cheated on her husband she definitely made it seem like she'd be open to the idea with Gen. West, the FBI agent and intimated such things to Broadwell about Petraeus.
Avoid this woman at all costs. Unless you want to end up in jail for falling into the honeypot.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Election Day 2012
As of 12:50pm EST, I am calling the Election for Barak H. Obama.
The reasons I am calling it for him are:
The reasons I am calling it for him are:
- He is the incumbent President. That alone gives him the edge.
- He is still relatively popular across the major population zones/major cities
- Union Backing.
Romney could win, but I agree with most statistics that give him only a 7% chance of winning.
Frankly they are both terrible and the only candidate running that gives a rats ass about your freedom is Gary Johnson on the Libertarian Party. He isn't insane or authoritarian. The major parties blacklisted him from the official debates which are now just party debates rather than Presidential Debates.
-JC
Friday, November 02, 2012
So who is the dick now?
One thing is funny in politics. That is the sheer level of apathy for every other human being involved in politics.
Sen. Harry Reid (D- NV) today said that he "couldn't" work with Romney. (link)
Of course for the past few years if not a decade + he has been whining about bi-partisanship (or the lack thereof) on the part of Republicans. Of course this means that bipartisanship is just another word for forcing the other side to agree with you on major principles (surrender).
Of course saying that there are only two sides to an argument is also a glib statement to begin with, but that is what our current party structures are based on. You have a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant bottle of douche. And they like it that way. Modern political parties have divided us in order to conquer. The third parties are more niche in their concerns and in reality have a great deal more in common across broad issues than Democrats and Republicans do. Libertarians as an example would be very happy to cooperate with Greens on foreign policy by and large as both have many anti-war views.
But back to the main topic:
Harry Reid in fact CAN cooperate, but he will choose not to because it works to his party's political advantage to be just as obstructionist as the Republicans have been to them. There is no reward for cooperation in the party. You are just consorting with the enemy. Statesmanship is a description that we reserve for people prior to Henry Kissinger by and large. Harry Reid is merely the latest in a long line of politicians on every side of the aisle who seeks to gain influence by being the biggest roadblock possible. This is after all about power...now about what is good for the USA.
Follow the money.
Sen. Harry Reid (D- NV) today said that he "couldn't" work with Romney. (link)
Of course for the past few years if not a decade + he has been whining about bi-partisanship (or the lack thereof) on the part of Republicans. Of course this means that bipartisanship is just another word for forcing the other side to agree with you on major principles (surrender).
Of course saying that there are only two sides to an argument is also a glib statement to begin with, but that is what our current party structures are based on. You have a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant bottle of douche. And they like it that way. Modern political parties have divided us in order to conquer. The third parties are more niche in their concerns and in reality have a great deal more in common across broad issues than Democrats and Republicans do. Libertarians as an example would be very happy to cooperate with Greens on foreign policy by and large as both have many anti-war views.
But back to the main topic:
Harry Reid in fact CAN cooperate, but he will choose not to because it works to his party's political advantage to be just as obstructionist as the Republicans have been to them. There is no reward for cooperation in the party. You are just consorting with the enemy. Statesmanship is a description that we reserve for people prior to Henry Kissinger by and large. Harry Reid is merely the latest in a long line of politicians on every side of the aisle who seeks to gain influence by being the biggest roadblock possible. This is after all about power...now about what is good for the USA.
Follow the money.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Clown Parade
It is nearing the critical point in election season: October. Everyone is doing their best to take the opponent down whoever he or she may be. One of the critical reasons for this is that October is when the lazy part of the electorate start to pay attention...because anything you need to know about the candidates can clearly be learned in the one month before the election...
Many of the politicians appear to be clowns.
President Obama's Interview Schedule:
Mitt Romney's Schedule:
Gary Johnson's Position on the Issues
For me he is the man. He is the least glib and the most honest. What is sad is that people don't take a party other than the DNC/GOP seriously. Much of that is thanks to state laws that put a high barrier of entry into the political field...especially for the national field.
Might as well have one party for all it matters around here.
goddamned clowns.
Many of the politicians appear to be clowns.
President Obama's Interview Schedule:
- David Letterman - Late Night Comedy
- The View - Day Time Talk/Wymyn's Issues - Perspective show
Mitt Romney's Schedule:
- Regis/Kelly (Both the Governor and his wife)
- Most other appearances int he Media (Jay Leno etc) Ann Romney only.
- Constant campaigning in Ohio alongside Paul Ryan.
Gary Johnson's Position on the Issues
For me he is the man. He is the least glib and the most honest. What is sad is that people don't take a party other than the DNC/GOP seriously. Much of that is thanks to state laws that put a high barrier of entry into the political field...especially for the national field.
Might as well have one party for all it matters around here.
goddamned clowns.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Butthurt Effect
The United States of America seems to have lost the set of brass balls it was born with during its revolution. There was a time when if a set of easily offended people got all butthurt we'd encourage them to get mad.
Example: Declaration of Independence - The Founding signers knew that they stood the chance to lose everything just based on the signing. Ethan Allen's property and house were bombarded by a warship from the coast then his house and property were razed and pillaged by the British. Just for signing. His wife was in hiding and she died basically of a broken heart. He was imprisoned on a British warship inside a small wooden box and shipped across the Atlantic...then to Ireland...and then was released as a part of prisoner exchanges at the end of the war.
Today: Some schmuck makes a video and
We should just shut all consular facilities in these nations and have only embassies in the capitals. Then we will tell all nations that we will not apologize for our citizens private actions that are in-line with the law. If they wish to protest they are of course free to do so as long as they do not resort to violence. Once that is said...we supply the OR ELSE portion of the speech.
Or Else would feature these points
- A reprisal will take place in several stages
- Stage 1) Diplomatic/Economic Sanctions taken Unilaterally
- Stage 2) Ejection of diplomats from the USA and a closing of embassies
- Stage 3) Complete trade shutdown (unilateral...other nations can do as they wish)
- Stage 4) Wait until they squeal and become more conciliatory
- Iraq/Afghan Special: For those two nations that have benefited from our investments...no more investments, we simply pack up and leave leave a sign that says thanks for all the fish.
There is no reason to invade or waste our troop's lives in these backwards nations. We can simply cease doing business with them. Oil is sold on a world market...we don't need to embargo that at all. Basically we can remove our presence and stop giving them fodder. At some point the people will likely overthrow their current governments and what they put in its place may be better or worse (Egypt I'm looking at you). The reality is that eventually when they are tired of failing they will find a way to create a benevolent form of government. So far we have simply bankrolled their failures and put an artificial floor so that as bad as things might seem they are actually far worse.
It is simply tough love. We don't need to be violent, but we do need to show them that violence will not be tolerated without responding in kind. At some point they will likely become less butthurt and move out of their fundamentalist phase towards an enlightenment that the west had three hundred years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)