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.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
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.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Critical Failure
This post is in response to Graeme McMillan's post on Time.com about his opinion on why the 'Bourne Leagacy' has no story.
Original Article featured HERE.
For those who haven't seen the movie this post is full of spoilers, so please do not read beyond this point unless you don't otherwise care.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jeremy Renner plays a U.S. Government Assassin part of a top secret program called "Outcome" which is a progression from "Treadstone" which birthed Jason Bourne.
At the start of the movie Aaron is seen diving into freezing water to retrieve a cannister with a map inside. Clearly he has some sort of amazing metabolism to achieve this and we see him taking some pills...green and blue.
It is later revealed by that character that the green are for physical enhancement and blue are for mental enhancement. He is however running out of meds.
Meanwhile the whole treadstone/blackbriar incidents are being exposed by Bourne and Pamela Landy (Bourne is causing havoc and Landy is testifying before Congress). So connections and call backs are being made.
Multiple characters in the intelligence divisions including edward norton's character are present and have their own struggles to keep things together. They decide to terminate all programs that Landy may know about including Outcome. Various assassins are poisoned by their handlers claiming the new pills are 2 drugs in 1. In the remote alaska wilderness where cross was last seen he arrives at a checkpoint of sorts, submits bloodwork and other things and here is where his story really kicks off.
He seems to have a more independent mind than other agents and he reveals that he was sent here as a punishment for going off grid when no one would answer his questions. He's quite curious and affable but you can sense he is cautious and always observing for others' motives.
He on the second or third day there he steps outside and hears a noise...he tells his compatriot to sit in "the nest" while he scouts out so they aren't both taken by surprise. a cruise missile launched from a CIA/DIA predator drone lands and explodes in the cabin with only Cross left alive. His instincts and training kick in and he outsmarts the pursuers and kills the drone with a well placed rifle shot after shielding the tracker they had implanted in him.
He is able to get the implant out in time and force it in the mouth of an alpha male wolf that has been tracking him (he no longer seems human to them) in time for the second drone to kill the wolf thinking it is Cross.
Now he begins his journey back to the mainland US after absconding with a plane...his objective is to get more meds...especially the mental ones.
Part 2) Steracyn-Morelanta is a biotech pharmaceutical company that produces these drugs and we follow a female scientist in her job for a short bit as she examines people similar to Cross. As she (and others in that lab) are aware of parts of the Outcome program, Edward Norton's move to wipe out all of those involved comes to the lab in the vein of a co-worker that goes "postal" and starts killing everyone in the lab. The doctor manages to stay alive until authorities can break intot he lab and the co-worker kills himself...clearly a product of Outcome himself, but she is rather bewildered.
This story gets into the papers about the work place killings and Cross sees this...recognizes the doctor (who inspected him 5 or 6 times before in their history it is later revealed) and so he makes his way to save her as he knows that the CIA will not give up after just one attack.
After saving her he helps her to assume a new identity and they flee the country (after convincing her to help him due to the nature and result of withdrawal from the chems he's been on) to the Philippines where he can be "viraled out" of being dependent on the drugs...and it turns out he was already viraled out of the physical ones secretly over a year ago. All of these technologies are by the way being researched by the lovely folks at www.darpa.mil
So they get there, negotiate their way past the guards (who know the doctor) and she manages to cobble together something she thinks will work for him. They have been tracked by the CIA now and have to fight their way out and disappear into the crowd.
Meanwhile the B-story continues with Jason Bourne being in the USA now and escaping the feds again and Pamela Landy beginning her testimony. Other refences to Bourne are made in the movie and it is clear that Bourne's insurrection has a sort of underground mythos and inspiration attached to it that motivate Cross.
Also we learn that Aaron Cross is really Kenneth James Kitsom during some flashbacks as he is sick from the virus and coming down from the drug's influences.
Big chase scene with a more advanced assassin program called LAR-X and action doctor shows she's got the chops to stick it out.
Ending stuff: The B-story rolls on with Bourne's stuff perhaps in another movie and we get a clip of Aaron/Ken looking beat-up and not seemingly himself being talked to by none-other than Edward Norton's character behind a camera trying to recruit him for the project. Cross has made up the story about his recruiter fudging his ASFAB/IQ score to get in the Army...it turns out he was from a state home in nevada and the motivation to not go back to that state is much more powerful and we understand his desperation in the movie all the more.
A lot of this also explains Norton's character feeling so familiar with cross and having his flashbacks in the movie.
There is real story, and heart in the film. And at least unlike the previous Bourne films the female love interest has some bearing on the story rather than being the unfortunate individual that the protagonist accidentally meets. Less serendipity and more reason.
There is plenty of story here and room for more expansion in that world including for Bourne and Cross to meet.
The author of the OP probably didn't really sit down and think during the movie...or was too busy sexting.
Original Article featured HERE.
For those who haven't seen the movie this post is full of spoilers, so please do not read beyond this point unless you don't otherwise care.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jeremy Renner plays a U.S. Government Assassin part of a top secret program called "Outcome" which is a progression from "Treadstone" which birthed Jason Bourne.
At the start of the movie Aaron is seen diving into freezing water to retrieve a cannister with a map inside. Clearly he has some sort of amazing metabolism to achieve this and we see him taking some pills...green and blue.
It is later revealed by that character that the green are for physical enhancement and blue are for mental enhancement. He is however running out of meds.
Meanwhile the whole treadstone/blackbriar incidents are being exposed by Bourne and Pamela Landy (Bourne is causing havoc and Landy is testifying before Congress). So connections and call backs are being made.
Multiple characters in the intelligence divisions including edward norton's character are present and have their own struggles to keep things together. They decide to terminate all programs that Landy may know about including Outcome. Various assassins are poisoned by their handlers claiming the new pills are 2 drugs in 1. In the remote alaska wilderness where cross was last seen he arrives at a checkpoint of sorts, submits bloodwork and other things and here is where his story really kicks off.
He seems to have a more independent mind than other agents and he reveals that he was sent here as a punishment for going off grid when no one would answer his questions. He's quite curious and affable but you can sense he is cautious and always observing for others' motives.
He on the second or third day there he steps outside and hears a noise...he tells his compatriot to sit in "the nest" while he scouts out so they aren't both taken by surprise. a cruise missile launched from a CIA/DIA predator drone lands and explodes in the cabin with only Cross left alive. His instincts and training kick in and he outsmarts the pursuers and kills the drone with a well placed rifle shot after shielding the tracker they had implanted in him.
He is able to get the implant out in time and force it in the mouth of an alpha male wolf that has been tracking him (he no longer seems human to them) in time for the second drone to kill the wolf thinking it is Cross.
Now he begins his journey back to the mainland US after absconding with a plane...his objective is to get more meds...especially the mental ones.
Part 2) Steracyn-Morelanta is a biotech pharmaceutical company that produces these drugs and we follow a female scientist in her job for a short bit as she examines people similar to Cross. As she (and others in that lab) are aware of parts of the Outcome program, Edward Norton's move to wipe out all of those involved comes to the lab in the vein of a co-worker that goes "postal" and starts killing everyone in the lab. The doctor manages to stay alive until authorities can break intot he lab and the co-worker kills himself...clearly a product of Outcome himself, but she is rather bewildered.
This story gets into the papers about the work place killings and Cross sees this...recognizes the doctor (who inspected him 5 or 6 times before in their history it is later revealed) and so he makes his way to save her as he knows that the CIA will not give up after just one attack.
After saving her he helps her to assume a new identity and they flee the country (after convincing her to help him due to the nature and result of withdrawal from the chems he's been on) to the Philippines where he can be "viraled out" of being dependent on the drugs...and it turns out he was already viraled out of the physical ones secretly over a year ago. All of these technologies are by the way being researched by the lovely folks at www.darpa.mil
So they get there, negotiate their way past the guards (who know the doctor) and she manages to cobble together something she thinks will work for him. They have been tracked by the CIA now and have to fight their way out and disappear into the crowd.
Meanwhile the B-story continues with Jason Bourne being in the USA now and escaping the feds again and Pamela Landy beginning her testimony. Other refences to Bourne are made in the movie and it is clear that Bourne's insurrection has a sort of underground mythos and inspiration attached to it that motivate Cross.
Also we learn that Aaron Cross is really Kenneth James Kitsom during some flashbacks as he is sick from the virus and coming down from the drug's influences.
Big chase scene with a more advanced assassin program called LAR-X and action doctor shows she's got the chops to stick it out.
Ending stuff: The B-story rolls on with Bourne's stuff perhaps in another movie and we get a clip of Aaron/Ken looking beat-up and not seemingly himself being talked to by none-other than Edward Norton's character behind a camera trying to recruit him for the project. Cross has made up the story about his recruiter fudging his ASFAB/IQ score to get in the Army...it turns out he was from a state home in nevada and the motivation to not go back to that state is much more powerful and we understand his desperation in the movie all the more.
A lot of this also explains Norton's character feeling so familiar with cross and having his flashbacks in the movie.
There is real story, and heart in the film. And at least unlike the previous Bourne films the female love interest has some bearing on the story rather than being the unfortunate individual that the protagonist accidentally meets. Less serendipity and more reason.
There is plenty of story here and room for more expansion in that world including for Bourne and Cross to meet.
The author of the OP probably didn't really sit down and think during the movie...or was too busy sexting.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Spiderman is a pussy
Spiderman...well Peter Parker is a massive pussy.
reason 1: He'd rather have his aunt may (who is like 110 years old or something at this point) survive a gunshot attack than his hot red haired super model wife. Yeah cause fuck her right?
reason 2: he never EVER finishes a fight. All his old enemies are running around still causing havok and property damage.
reason 3: he never learned how to fight properly in hand to hand combat relying mainly on his powers to serve him over technique.
reason 4: he's a giant emotional bag of fail
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Bad Practices
As I have gotten older I have increasingly distrusted police and the government. Not to the point that I am paranoid or I think anyone is out to get me, but I do think that those with authority have the tendency to abuse it without proper oversight.
So in this post I will be adding links to stories showing or providing evidence of police misusing their powers which are designed to protect us, but instead victimize otherwise law abiding citizens.
December Update
NEWEST UPDATE - FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG, FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG II
HERE
HERE
HERE
This will be updated
Update:
HERE
HERE
HERE (in the UK)
HERE
HERE
As I have gotten older I have increasingly distrusted police and the government. Not to the point that I am paranoid or I think anyone is out to get me, but I do think that those with authority have the tendency to abuse it without proper oversight.
So in this post I will be adding links to stories showing or providing evidence of police misusing their powers which are designed to protect us, but instead victimize otherwise law abiding citizens.
December Update
NEWEST UPDATE - FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG, FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG II
HERE
HERE
HERE
This will be updated
Update:
HERE
HERE
HERE (in the UK)
HERE
HERE
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
The Real Ron Paul (RON PAUL)
In this political season there are a great number of misconceptions about Congressman Ron Paul. One of the biggest is that no one knows what his foreign policy positions are or that they are somehow inherently dangerous.
So let us deal with his foreign policy positions:
Eliminate Foreign Aid to EVERYBODY: De Facto not dangerous...unless said foreign aid is proping up a torturous banana republic regime whose populous hates us for proping up said regime. Which would likely back fire on us anyway at some point.
Bonus: saves the tax payer money and gives less political ammo by various nationalist lobbying groups from afar. Yes both Israel and Palestine must be weened off of our money.
Reduce US footprint overseas: We have military bases in 63 countries. We can likely stand to close a few and consolidate to save some money and impose less on other nations' sovereignty. Bonus: saves the US tax payer money and feeds less to the military industrial complex. not in and of itself dangerous. This is usually painted as RON PAUL WILL DESTROY THE US MILITARY!!!!
expanded: Ron Paul would like to be rid of a standing army in theory, but even he knows that it isn't practical to do.
On the Diplomatic Front: Iran and Nukes: He understands why Irean is in a rush for nukes. Example: - Pakistan and N. Korea (Best Korea) both have nukes. Do you see the USA invading either country? No you do not. Iran has seen a nation to it's east and west invaded by the USA. If Ran had invaded Canada and Mexico and occupied them...we might want nukes as well if we didn't have em...y'know as a deterrent.
The current power structure wants to prevent Iran from getting nukes so they CAN invade. That is the reality. They will say they don't want turrists to get nukes or Israel to get asploded from afar. however that seems unlikely and more talk than reality even if they do sabre rattle at israel every other day.
The worry about terrorists is real but likely overblown considering Iran's first nuke will not be as sophisticated as what the USA or Russian Federation has in it's own inventory. To top it off the war drums for invading Iran have been beating for over a year at this point and it would surprise no one if we invaded. Obama would likely attempt this.
So let us deal with his foreign policy positions:
Eliminate Foreign Aid to EVERYBODY: De Facto not dangerous...unless said foreign aid is proping up a torturous banana republic regime whose populous hates us for proping up said regime. Which would likely back fire on us anyway at some point.
Bonus: saves the tax payer money and gives less political ammo by various nationalist lobbying groups from afar. Yes both Israel and Palestine must be weened off of our money.
Reduce US footprint overseas: We have military bases in 63 countries. We can likely stand to close a few and consolidate to save some money and impose less on other nations' sovereignty. Bonus: saves the US tax payer money and feeds less to the military industrial complex. not in and of itself dangerous. This is usually painted as RON PAUL WILL DESTROY THE US MILITARY!!!!
expanded: Ron Paul would like to be rid of a standing army in theory, but even he knows that it isn't practical to do.
On the Diplomatic Front: Iran and Nukes: He understands why Irean is in a rush for nukes. Example: - Pakistan and N. Korea (Best Korea) both have nukes. Do you see the USA invading either country? No you do not. Iran has seen a nation to it's east and west invaded by the USA. If Ran had invaded Canada and Mexico and occupied them...we might want nukes as well if we didn't have em...y'know as a deterrent.
The current power structure wants to prevent Iran from getting nukes so they CAN invade. That is the reality. They will say they don't want turrists to get nukes or Israel to get asploded from afar. however that seems unlikely and more talk than reality even if they do sabre rattle at israel every other day.
The worry about terrorists is real but likely overblown considering Iran's first nuke will not be as sophisticated as what the USA or Russian Federation has in it's own inventory. To top it off the war drums for invading Iran have been beating for over a year at this point and it would surprise no one if we invaded. Obama would likely attempt this.
Friday, October 14, 2011
White People Can't Win
I'm white so I guess I suck and can't make any judgments whatsoever without being racist. It is like making a comment these days and having everyone say "That's what she said". You just walk into situations where an innocent comment can be taken as racist or out of context and made offensive in some way.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ed-cain-says-what-white-gopers-want-hear
"Break" in relation to word meanings isn't in and of it self a racist term. In fact the word and meaning existed well before Slavery in North America. I really really dislike Mr. Dyson because he sees everything in terms of race and cannot get out from behind that polarizing field.
Breaking someone means what it means regardless of the racial context and is only "racist" in that it was used by racists. In that same context any town names where slave owners lived would be considered racist by association even if they are not...assholes.
See the reason that the black democrats hate Herman Cain is because he overcame adversity WITHOUT their help and promotion. He obtained a Math and Master's degree and has constantly been involved int eh political process including a town hall debate with former President Bill Clinton.
Cain is called an Oreo, an uncle tom and other names by the leftists who are merely trolls baiting him with incendiary statements.
MSNBC in its "Lean Forward" campaign is a water carrier for all progressive organizations and the Obama Admin
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ed-cain-says-what-white-gopers-want-hear
"Break" in relation to word meanings isn't in and of it self a racist term. In fact the word and meaning existed well before Slavery in North America. I really really dislike Mr. Dyson because he sees everything in terms of race and cannot get out from behind that polarizing field.
Breaking someone means what it means regardless of the racial context and is only "racist" in that it was used by racists. In that same context any town names where slave owners lived would be considered racist by association even if they are not...assholes.
See the reason that the black democrats hate Herman Cain is because he overcame adversity WITHOUT their help and promotion. He obtained a Math and Master's degree and has constantly been involved int eh political process including a town hall debate with former President Bill Clinton.
Cain is called an Oreo, an uncle tom and other names by the leftists who are merely trolls baiting him with incendiary statements.
MSNBC in its "Lean Forward" campaign is a water carrier for all progressive organizations and the Obama Admin
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
My dream ticket this time around
President Ron Paul and VP Herman Cain.
Bu...bu...but you're crazy man!
No no I'm not.
Ron Paul has more foreign policy experience and has a long history of domestic policy experience. Herman Cain is only good on domestic policy. He would be better as head of the senate to help the President achieve his goals.
That is all.
Bu...bu...but you're crazy man!
No no I'm not.
Ron Paul has more foreign policy experience and has a long history of domestic policy experience. Herman Cain is only good on domestic policy. He would be better as head of the senate to help the President achieve his goals.
That is all.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Internal Monologue
My Internal Monologue will forever be: Mike Rowe - Dirty Jobs and others on the discovery channel. And I think Ford Trucks...
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Herp and Derp - Why I Am Accused of Being An Idiot
Alright, let us accept that at the most 20% of US Citizens are of a Libertarian bent. That isn't insignificant and it is likely equivalent to the number that are ardent socialists/communists or other hardcore leftists.
The vast majority of people in the United States are "conservative" in that they are more conservative than even the most conservative people elsewhere in the western...and possibly eastern world. This country is an oddity in that its very founding is built on the notion that government should be limited in scope. In that sense we were founded on radicalism...just not the leftist anarchy kind of radicalism.
Our core values (at least at the end of the 18th century) were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So I suppose I will start there.
If you have the right to Life (and like all rights are subject to due process), then one would consider an abortion at least after a certain point in gestational development to be an imposition on that right.
I can see the medical need for abortions for a limited series of scenarios, but oops I didn't mean to get preggers isn't one of them. I believe that women should have access to the service in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother would be endangered by the pregnancy. In all other cases proper birth control exists and should be used prudently. And ladies...don't trust the guy...supply your own and if he won't wear a condom then just tell him to fuck right off.
The death sentence: As long as due process is observed to the letter and spirit of the law then I'm ok with this.
Life is an essential right for without it none of the others are obtainable. For the oops I got preggers crowd there are plenty of people waiting to adopt a child...help them out and quit being a shit head.
Liberty: Liberty is an interesting concept based on the Locke-ian idea of self-governance. And implied in that also is personal responsibility. Your rights (liberties) are only so valid as to the extent that they do not violate the rights of others to exercise those same exact rights as completely as you would have done.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
I may not agree with everything that man said, but it eloquently establishes where rights end. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments of the US Constitution) only establishes those rights that exist irrespective of your state. Any other rights that we as people deem to take are ours for the taking...the constitution even says so. Implicit again however is the responsible use of those rights.
At one point it was illegal to manufacture, sell or distribute alcohol and in some locales even today there are "dry" counties, campi and even states restrict the abv % that can be sold.
I believe you have a firm right to imbibe, smoke, inject, absorb whatever food or toxin you like. I happen to enjoy nearly every form of alcohol available. I choose not to partake of any others even though I have the option to do so. On the responsibility side I have the duty to not abuse the alcohol, to not put others in danger to my recreational use of it...i.e. don't drink before work, don't drink and drive, don't get so drunk I am impaired (ok that last one...I've not really lived up to once in a while...but I listed it last because it is least important).
The same goes for any drug including those we don't normally associate with being a drug like caffein, aspirin and other mundane drugs. Amphetamines (Speed) have their use when regulated by a doctor. Steroids are often proscribed by doctors for a myriad of conditions including migraine headaches, immune-deficiency, and to aid in recovery from reconstructive surgery. Popularly steroids are viewed negatively thanks to the abusers and some nice fascist campaigns and PR ads warning people away from using them.
Liberties are at risk from abusers. They are the bad apples that cause the rest to rot. Collective punishment strikes even the responsible; this breeds contempt and fosters ill will among men and women who would otherwise be good to each other. There was a time when each citizen was allowed to own without question up to 5 lbs of black powder for their own personal use.
9/11 took that away. Did the terrorists use black powder? Nope...they flew commercial jet liners into commercial towers in NY City. Were they US Citizens? No. They overstayed visas from the US Govt. 17/19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...our ally don'tcha know. But you lost that ability to own that amount of black powder because of an unrelated incident.
Let us pretend however that there was a rash of incidents across the USA where youngsters were blowing their hands...feet...heads, whatever, off because they didn't know how to handle the stuff properly. What is the solution? Here are 3 options and one I will highlight as the most common.
1) Ban the use
2) License/permit and require training before being able to buy/use
3) Don't be an idiot and educate yourself on how black powder works so you can handle it safely and not die or get injured.
2) makes sense to most people and I can't say that it is a bad idea
3) I prefer over them all. Use your head or suffer the consequences. Some people need to get burned to find out the stove is hot...
1) is the common answer because it appears simple, it signifies action! You are really DOING something about the perceived problem. Except you aren't. The problem wasn't the powder. The problem was the idiot who didn't use it right. Again, self governance is the key. To expand on my earlier point about collective punishment let us talk about mobs and group-think.
Mobs are very easy to persuade via an emotional argument. And when they get whipped up it is dangerous to stand in their way or speak out and attempt to be rational. If you try to be rational you become the enemy and it only gets worse. Communities are like mobs. These towns and villages and even cities have collective identities and a good demagogue can play on this quite effectively as can any family member play politics enough to shut another member out.
Mobs will 99% of the time do the wrong thing. Mobs have leaders. And sometimes mobs will even out mob those people.
Let us examine the recent riots in Britain:
A drug dealing youth (re: gangster, jackass, threat to no one in particular but likes to appear threatening) was shot by London police in the northern end of the city. The family rightfully protests the actions of the police. Then riots break out. The Mob takes over.
They could care less if some guy was shot. Some of them claim to be protesting against the "unfairness" of the cutbacks in govt services in the welfare depts. Others (who probably never paid taxes) were "getting their taxes back" via looting. So...they stole from their own countrymen who paid taxes and paid for their welfare benefits for a long time because the government taxed em...wait no that isn't it.
They were getting their taxes back. These people feel they have an entitlement to YOUR tax money. That is what they meant...not that they had been unfairly taxed, but that you hadn't paid enough of your taxes so they are getting them back through violence. It is laughable if it weren't the fridge logic that these junkies use.
In britain 10% of all its citizens have been on welfare since Bush was first elected back in 2000. Some of these kids rioting had parents who had never had a job! It is astounding! In 2011 Britain spent 16% of all its money on welfare, or roughly 3x that of national defense. There are many here in the USA who would like to see that sort of turn come about. But as we can see it only makes matters worse not better.
A Dumbass Mother of 10 is reported on here.
This is the sort of idiocy that is cropping up here. Govt is responsible for EVERYTHING (as it should be some say). This smacks of totalitarianism...no not evil secret police stepping on you, but rather that there is nothing outside of the state's purview or authority. It is a dangerous attitude for it justifies anything...yes even well intentioned things (especially those) because the people who think them up want to control that aspect of your life...for your own good. You can't be trusted to do it yourself so we have to free you from that responsibility. It is for the good of the community!
I'm not wrong and I'm not an idiot. People are dumb, panicky and irresponsible. Individuals are smart, resourceful and responsible. Just compare the political parties to those individuals you know and associate with every day. yes one or two might be a bit off, but most are reasonable rational human beings. And then they join a group. Then it all goes to hell.
- later
The vast majority of people in the United States are "conservative" in that they are more conservative than even the most conservative people elsewhere in the western...and possibly eastern world. This country is an oddity in that its very founding is built on the notion that government should be limited in scope. In that sense we were founded on radicalism...just not the leftist anarchy kind of radicalism.
Our core values (at least at the end of the 18th century) were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So I suppose I will start there.
If you have the right to Life (and like all rights are subject to due process), then one would consider an abortion at least after a certain point in gestational development to be an imposition on that right.
I can see the medical need for abortions for a limited series of scenarios, but oops I didn't mean to get preggers isn't one of them. I believe that women should have access to the service in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother would be endangered by the pregnancy. In all other cases proper birth control exists and should be used prudently. And ladies...don't trust the guy...supply your own and if he won't wear a condom then just tell him to fuck right off.
The death sentence: As long as due process is observed to the letter and spirit of the law then I'm ok with this.
Life is an essential right for without it none of the others are obtainable. For the oops I got preggers crowd there are plenty of people waiting to adopt a child...help them out and quit being a shit head.
Liberty: Liberty is an interesting concept based on the Locke-ian idea of self-governance. And implied in that also is personal responsibility. Your rights (liberties) are only so valid as to the extent that they do not violate the rights of others to exercise those same exact rights as completely as you would have done.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
- attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
I may not agree with everything that man said, but it eloquently establishes where rights end. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments of the US Constitution) only establishes those rights that exist irrespective of your state. Any other rights that we as people deem to take are ours for the taking...the constitution even says so. Implicit again however is the responsible use of those rights.
At one point it was illegal to manufacture, sell or distribute alcohol and in some locales even today there are "dry" counties, campi and even states restrict the abv % that can be sold.
I believe you have a firm right to imbibe, smoke, inject, absorb whatever food or toxin you like. I happen to enjoy nearly every form of alcohol available. I choose not to partake of any others even though I have the option to do so. On the responsibility side I have the duty to not abuse the alcohol, to not put others in danger to my recreational use of it...i.e. don't drink before work, don't drink and drive, don't get so drunk I am impaired (ok that last one...I've not really lived up to once in a while...but I listed it last because it is least important).
The same goes for any drug including those we don't normally associate with being a drug like caffein, aspirin and other mundane drugs. Amphetamines (Speed) have their use when regulated by a doctor. Steroids are often proscribed by doctors for a myriad of conditions including migraine headaches, immune-deficiency, and to aid in recovery from reconstructive surgery. Popularly steroids are viewed negatively thanks to the abusers and some nice fascist campaigns and PR ads warning people away from using them.
Liberties are at risk from abusers. They are the bad apples that cause the rest to rot. Collective punishment strikes even the responsible; this breeds contempt and fosters ill will among men and women who would otherwise be good to each other. There was a time when each citizen was allowed to own without question up to 5 lbs of black powder for their own personal use.
9/11 took that away. Did the terrorists use black powder? Nope...they flew commercial jet liners into commercial towers in NY City. Were they US Citizens? No. They overstayed visas from the US Govt. 17/19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...our ally don'tcha know. But you lost that ability to own that amount of black powder because of an unrelated incident.
Let us pretend however that there was a rash of incidents across the USA where youngsters were blowing their hands...feet...heads, whatever, off because they didn't know how to handle the stuff properly. What is the solution? Here are 3 options and one I will highlight as the most common.
1) Ban the use
2) License/permit and require training before being able to buy/use
3) Don't be an idiot and educate yourself on how black powder works so you can handle it safely and not die or get injured.
2) makes sense to most people and I can't say that it is a bad idea
3) I prefer over them all. Use your head or suffer the consequences. Some people need to get burned to find out the stove is hot...
1) is the common answer because it appears simple, it signifies action! You are really DOING something about the perceived problem. Except you aren't. The problem wasn't the powder. The problem was the idiot who didn't use it right. Again, self governance is the key. To expand on my earlier point about collective punishment let us talk about mobs and group-think.
Mobs are very easy to persuade via an emotional argument. And when they get whipped up it is dangerous to stand in their way or speak out and attempt to be rational. If you try to be rational you become the enemy and it only gets worse. Communities are like mobs. These towns and villages and even cities have collective identities and a good demagogue can play on this quite effectively as can any family member play politics enough to shut another member out.
Mobs will 99% of the time do the wrong thing. Mobs have leaders. And sometimes mobs will even out mob those people.
Let us examine the recent riots in Britain:
A drug dealing youth (re: gangster, jackass, threat to no one in particular but likes to appear threatening) was shot by London police in the northern end of the city. The family rightfully protests the actions of the police. Then riots break out. The Mob takes over.
They could care less if some guy was shot. Some of them claim to be protesting against the "unfairness" of the cutbacks in govt services in the welfare depts. Others (who probably never paid taxes) were "getting their taxes back" via looting. So...they stole from their own countrymen who paid taxes and paid for their welfare benefits for a long time because the government taxed em...wait no that isn't it.
They were getting their taxes back. These people feel they have an entitlement to YOUR tax money. That is what they meant...not that they had been unfairly taxed, but that you hadn't paid enough of your taxes so they are getting them back through violence. It is laughable if it weren't the fridge logic that these junkies use.
In britain 10% of all its citizens have been on welfare since Bush was first elected back in 2000. Some of these kids rioting had parents who had never had a job! It is astounding! In 2011 Britain spent 16% of all its money on welfare, or roughly 3x that of national defense. There are many here in the USA who would like to see that sort of turn come about. But as we can see it only makes matters worse not better.
A Dumbass Mother of 10 is reported on here.
This is the sort of idiocy that is cropping up here. Govt is responsible for EVERYTHING (as it should be some say). This smacks of totalitarianism...no not evil secret police stepping on you, but rather that there is nothing outside of the state's purview or authority. It is a dangerous attitude for it justifies anything...yes even well intentioned things (especially those) because the people who think them up want to control that aspect of your life...for your own good. You can't be trusted to do it yourself so we have to free you from that responsibility. It is for the good of the community!
I'm not wrong and I'm not an idiot. People are dumb, panicky and irresponsible. Individuals are smart, resourceful and responsible. Just compare the political parties to those individuals you know and associate with every day. yes one or two might be a bit off, but most are reasonable rational human beings. And then they join a group. Then it all goes to hell.
- later
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
When a cut is not a cut
A cut is not a cut when it is still an increase in spending.
For example: The govt spends 2T this year
The govt intends to spend 3T next year
- citizen outrage -
The govt agrees to only spend 2.8T and says hey look we cut spending 200B!
That isn't a cut...
For the more domesticated: Your wife spent $200 on shoes this year
Your wife wants to go shopping at Sax 5th Ave and wants to spend $500
- You explain your displeasure -
Your wife spends $350 and says but honey I SAVED you $150
So she still increased spending by 50% but "SAVED" $150 and declares that she "cut" her spending.
See how that doesn't work?
Here is how they do this: Baseline Budgeting
So they created a law...for themselves that lets them get away with calling an objective increase a theoretical cut...just because its a smaller increase!
Aaaaaand that is why pundits should be shot...they don't explain this shit to people. Of course this is also where the glib attitude of the politicians comes from as well. They don't explain this shit to you because you would be in a constant state of pout-rage and might actually decide to throw a revolution. The govt takes money from you by force and legislatively mandates increases. You can't extricate money from your employer by force of law and require increases just because you want to spend more.
See how this works? Yep this post is nearly over.
Base 0 Budgeting: Zeroing out your expenditures at the end of the year. This is how you and I do it. We have income year to year and we pay based on our yearly income and we budget based on that and not on theoretical increases that may or may not materialize because we cannot through simply saying "I EARN 1 MILLION DOLLARS" actually earn 1 million dollars.
So to get the govt budget under control...perhaps we ought to repeal the 1974 budget act. Perhaps amend it.
Either way, calling a smaller increase a cut is being disingenuous and ought to result in the speaker of such ambiguity being bitch-slapped for a solid hour while being recited lines from War & Peace or something like that. A real unusual but not entirely cruel punishment for being a douche-bag.
For example: The govt spends 2T this year
The govt intends to spend 3T next year
- citizen outrage -
The govt agrees to only spend 2.8T and says hey look we cut spending 200B!
That isn't a cut...
For the more domesticated: Your wife spent $200 on shoes this year
Your wife wants to go shopping at Sax 5th Ave and wants to spend $500
- You explain your displeasure -
Your wife spends $350 and says but honey I SAVED you $150
So she still increased spending by 50% but "SAVED" $150 and declares that she "cut" her spending.
See how that doesn't work?
Here is how they do this: Baseline Budgeting
So they created a law...for themselves that lets them get away with calling an objective increase a theoretical cut...just because its a smaller increase!
Aaaaaand that is why pundits should be shot...they don't explain this shit to people. Of course this is also where the glib attitude of the politicians comes from as well. They don't explain this shit to you because you would be in a constant state of pout-rage and might actually decide to throw a revolution. The govt takes money from you by force and legislatively mandates increases. You can't extricate money from your employer by force of law and require increases just because you want to spend more.
See how this works? Yep this post is nearly over.
Base 0 Budgeting: Zeroing out your expenditures at the end of the year. This is how you and I do it. We have income year to year and we pay based on our yearly income and we budget based on that and not on theoretical increases that may or may not materialize because we cannot through simply saying "I EARN 1 MILLION DOLLARS" actually earn 1 million dollars.
So to get the govt budget under control...perhaps we ought to repeal the 1974 budget act. Perhaps amend it.
Either way, calling a smaller increase a cut is being disingenuous and ought to result in the speaker of such ambiguity being bitch-slapped for a solid hour while being recited lines from War & Peace or something like that. A real unusual but not entirely cruel punishment for being a douche-bag.
Monday, August 01, 2011
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Rep. (D-Pa.) Mike Doyle
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.
Joy oh joy of days! You know how you are getting screwed when people are fighting their own propositions and pretending that someone else is responsible. The Tea Partiers supposed extremism is that they want a balanced federal budget.
nearly every state has that...most local communities and damnit...your budget is automatically balanced as an individual because you CAN'T PRINT YOUR OWN MONEY WHEN YOU WANT IT.
But its TERRORISM when someone simply wants some responsibility. And yet people fall for it. The whole argument for MORE debt ($2.6T of it) is based on the presumption that incurring more debt is good for the economy. And in the short term it might be, but the whole deal with the credit rating is based on a long term outlook...and long term there is no plan to pay back the debt, simply continuing interest payments and churning old debt back into newer debt.
Fuck you whale! fuck you dolphin and fuck you Biden!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)