The Mass Effect Trilogy was the journey of one Commander John/Jane Shepard. Cdr. Shepard rose from a line officer to a Command officer and finally culminated in pan galactic war hero with unlimited authority and above any law. Its a lot of exceptions to make for any man but for the story to succeed it worked. He/She was basically an interstellar Delta-Force^³.
Well as a result of his or her choices we get three basic flavors of ending to this 'volume' for lack of a better term.
Flavor 1: Destruction - Reapers and Geth go bye bye...oh and so does EDI.
Consequence - Depending on war assets and whether or not you made the illlusive man kill himself...Shepard survives. The reapers are destroyed and anything made up of their technology is at best majorly disrupted (presumably including the Keepers in the Citadel as well as the Citadel itself...now dead in orbit over the Earth). The Mass Effect Relays are majorly damaged and teh galaxy is ravaged by the war with merely pieces of their fleets left over.
The industrial and damage to quality of life across these interstellar empires is massive. This cycle may have been the least ready for an onslaught like this and only survived due to luck in finding what others had left behind. The Protheans of the previous cycle had probably dealt a lot more damage to the Reapers than even Shepard could imagine...yet they kept on coming. The empires of this era were comparatively new on the proverbial block.
The Reapers would have had precious little trouble if it wasn't for the MacGuffin that is the Crucible. Not even the remnants of their creators (the Leviathan) were really much of a threat.
So to me this is the worst possible ending in terms of the amount of time it takes to recover. However it gives the galaxy the largest chance to start completely anew. It is a clean slate. future protagonists will have to deal with an overall stunted technological and industrial/commercial base (logically) and whatever the main plot goal is...will be the most difficult to achieve. However there will be some rewards in terms of flexibility for choices one would surmise.
As to the Quarian question - They might not matter. If the player chose to side with legion...then do destruction...both Geth and Quarians are endangered species if not outright extinct by the time we pick up the first chapter of the next volume. At best the Quarians are left trapped in the Sol System far from Rannoch...which at this point would be a long way from being rebuilt.
Shepards survival or death isn't terribly meaningful except to Liara..who may still be alive and a Matron by the time the new volume picks up. If he survived there maybe one or two of his daughters out there to be encountered or if not encountered then at least you might hear about their own exploits.
Flavor 2: Control - Quarians and Geth can survive in this one together or you can pick one or the other. Here Shepard is now the Deus Ex Machina. He replaces the Starchild and the Reapers become a super pan galactic protector rather than a machine of harvesting.
Consequences - The Mass relays are likely rapidly rebuilt and technological development continues onward. Galactic travel likely resumes in as short as a generation or two thanks to Reaper assistance. In game terms...maybe the new protagonist will hear the ghostly voice of =Shepard exclaiming that this store is his favorite on the citadel. Perhaps the Reapers will deliver unexpected aid to the protagonist as a result of Shepard's benevolence and desire to protect the galaxy from whatever the latest threat is.
On the down side we may have an orwellian sort of state here where nothing is beyond the reach of the reapers. A soft tyranny of sorts. the brutality of the reapers will be unquestioned but largely hidden from all but those in power for the various stellar governments. The mere threat of war will result in the Reapers stepping in as a police force to prevent or stop instability. Peace at all costs.
The overall plot wouldn't change but news reports and attitudes would be darker. The Reapers would be anti-heroic. Shepard is in control...isn't he? That would be a neat C-plot to explore.
Flavor C - The Good Ending - Synthesis. The Reapers...though partially organic before are now sentient and connected to the web of life. They have empathy and individuality. Individuals are now connected through their shared techno-organic Gestalt and have access to all of the knowledge that came before.
As the ending states...everyone is free to rebuild and flourish like never before. The Reapers are galactic citizens and not oppressors or caretakers. The state of technology would be highest here...perhaps with a new generation of Mass Relays...or a better form of travel that eliminates the need for them entirely. Ships and people can now move freely about the Galaxy. This ending REQUIRES many things. It requires Shepard to have deleted the Geth who rebelled. It requires Shepard to have stood down the Quarian fleet while allowing legion to sacrifice himself for the good of his entire people and it requires the quarians to have some to a peace with the Geth.
EDI lives. The Normandy flies off. Perhaps it reapirs itself now that it is at least partly composed of organic components. The Krogan even flourish...rebuilding Tuchanka in the images of the ancients. They have learned from their mistakes and have likely expanded their space beyond Tuchanka and potentially have a seat on the Council...taking their place finally as a legitimate power. The Reapers after helping to repair likely retreated to dark space continuing a higher mission of protection of their Galactic Wards. They might even have a council representative.
The protagonist here will have an extreme advantage compared to other endings with possibly a better starting condition. N7 at this point should be a pan galactic designation...not one limited to those from Earth. It should be on-par if not replacing the SPECTRE status (regardless of ending). The difference here is that there will be more cooperation than in the destruction ending between powers...easier diplomatic solutions. Control would force cooperation out of fear of the wrath of shepard. Destruction...well the galaxy should be only *just* recovering in the slightest at his point.
Entire worlds will be cratered and scarred...in fact this would likely be the first Generation to really go back to the stars from the Destruction ending. I for one can't imagine that ever being the best ending. However it would have one thing in common with the synthesis ending and that is a different method of FTL travel not dependent on Reaper based Mass Relays.
Well here's to hoping we pick up on the Dark Energy story line here.
Saturday, July 05, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Movie Review: The Numbers Station
Premise: Hardboiled but troubled CIA field agent is assigned to manage a small CIA shortwave radio broadcast station and must pull it together when things go awry.
The Actors: John Cusak, Malin Ackerman and Liam Cunningham (Sir Davos on Game of Thrones).
The Characters (respectively): Emerson Kent, Katherine, Grey.
Katherine is the rather wide-eyed civilian broadcaster who is somewhat in denial about what she does and fantasizes about the missions she is handing out.
Emerson is still shaken from Grey murdering an innocent girl to close the loose ends on a previous assignment (one of the numbers from a station like the one he is now manning). Grey is promoted and gets him this job as a favor...and also so the agency simply doesn't off his former partner (he knows too much).
Cut to the bunker: They are leaving their 2 day shift for a weekend off and we are introduced to their shift alternates who are basically nothing more than red-shirts. There is not enough time to develop their characters other than that they are both young though obviously the man is older in this case and through Emerson's eyes we see that they are in a relationship. Though natural one can see disapproval in Emerson's eyes.
So we get some more of his mental anguish and drinking in a short cut-scene (thank the editor gods for that). Then moving on he picks her up at the train station as usual. They arrive at the bunker and see their alternate's transportation is still there...which at this point shouldn't be unmanned. Then the attack begins and we go through a series of stages including investigation and they find out that even their emergency hardline is compromised. Eventually our protagonists succeed, and not only are all of the antagonists dead (save one technically) but Emerson reveals that Katherine saved Grey's life. Grey still wanted to kill her up until this reveal and gives them 10 days to disappear.
Movie Characteristics:
Location: Suffolk England @ WW2 US Army Base - Retrofitted Radio Bunker
Cinematography: Good use of lighting for the mood and setting. Dramatic rather than functional. Adds to the stress of the situation. The steady rather than shaky cam
Character development: Emerson basically grows a backbone. As for whether or not he's developed feelings for Katherine...it could be mostly a father-daughter relationship in his mind but he does care for her. Grey is nearly a perfect sociopath, but he still values loyalty and since Emerson is loyal (though broken) he rewards that. He knows how to manipulate and to what extent he can get away with emotional control. Emerson would have been too much of a problem if he'd refused to let Katherine walk.
Katherine makes the heroine mistake of leaving the secured room at one point to make the broadcasts stopping the assassinations of CIA and other intelligence officials. She gets a bullet as a reward but lives thanks to Emerson's persistence and timely crashing into a hospital parking lot (he was also shot by the final villain on the way out...jacking his car).
The movie is decent, though the suspense is a bit light. The shady underbelly of the intelligence world only glimpsed rather than confronted. But the veteran character's animosity towards his own people begins to show. The psychologist examining him at the beginning says that "We're not sociopaths". Obviously she is cajoling him. A sociopath would have been fine with their activities and the protagonist isn't any longer. He is detached...but not that distant. He has a code; grown-ups have had their time and crossing with him is their last mistake. Kids to him are off-limits or at least should be. The CIA in this movie obviously feels that not only are domestic black bag operations acceptable but that its ok to murder innocent children to cover up an op's existence.
It is heavy handed but a movie like this has a screen play fit for future TV adaptation. The Numbers Station has a great premise to build either a limited run mini-series or single season show on...or a longer multi-season (3-5 seasons).
I'd re-imagine it this way:
Post movie consequences - fallout from the destruction of this radio base leads to the upending of a conspiracy internally where a few low level CIA officials have been fired and disappeared...a new radio station opens in a different part of England (where of course our protagonists will be stationed...but for the pilot we have a cold open on a similar incident taking place...setting off another round of assassinations.)
This time Grey bites the dust. The series will actually follow 2x sets of protagonists each getting an episode or half episode of time. Some will run concurrently and others will be in serial. The opening and closing credits will tell another story via a silent movie like method. Putting together the credits from across a season will tell a story that is its own that could be self-contained or connect events otherwise only alluded to during the regular season.
Moving forward - post cold open and post credits we are introduced to our first new sets of protagonists. This will be done with a similar psychologist interviewing them after previous assignments that have all taken a toll (for the 2 station chiefs). For the civilians...like in the movie they will either be college drop-outs or hired straight out of college. Complete civilians with minimal skills though they may have been to the farm for cursory training as analysts (replete with basic survival skills).
Each shift won't meet until the third episode during shift change. Episode 2 will follow them on initial move-in and simple assignment broadcasting. Episode 2 will show the second shift team doing prep-work and at the end of the show it will be a quick scene showing them being followed and chronicled by someone(s).
As the season draws on another station could be shown to be hit in a cold open by unknown people. However life for our protagonists goes on fairly normal though they may notice being followed or something else. One shift will be more open and another more coy. Eventually they will leave messages for each other. And following that...they will be attacked separately (but will persevere) and then they will be sharing ciphers.
They will work separately on pieces of the puzzle. And only get a peek at the conspiracy. The conspiracy will take a bigger stage in season 2 as some episodes will focus more on that aspect. Even here however the full extent won't be revealed with only 3-5 of the episodes having this as central. The two teams will be growing closer but hiding it from their superiors. This will keep them safe for the moment though more attempts on their station will be attempted.
Season 3 will kick off with a 2 part 2 hour show. The first part will be much like the film with a siege of the installation with the second part being the relief but deepening of the conspiracy. Their superiors will praise them for defending the installation without a compromise like we have seen happen in other places...but its a gambit...the team is split up...new stations for each pair with 3rd and 4th set added. The 3rd and 4th set are conspirators. conspiracy fun time! As each original team watches the news in their off hours they see important people being assassinated world wide including congressmen and at least one important cabinet member. Things are getting worse. Season 3 will end with the death of the President...killed by his own secret service detail.
Season 4 kicks off with a presidential funeral, but then cuts back to the more hum-drum life of broadcasting numbers. The conspiracy teams return and the assassinations stop. The new President (VP whoever) is in power and things calm down. Each *protagonist* team begins to put pieces together. Each antagonist team begins to suspect that part of the jig is up. Season 4 will concentrate on protagonist teams building allies in their off hours rather than on the numbers. More action here a-la covert affairs with cross channel-tunnel action in Paris as well as England and Scotland. Season 4 will end with each protagonist team blowing up their stations and going rogue for season 5..the final season each team with half a cipher...fighting to get to each other.
Season 5: The cipher if united and used will lay out the final stages for a series of assassinations bringing unwanted people to power. If the protagonists fail...WW3 will start. If they succeed the USA will be rocked to the core and perhaps start another revolution. Scenes of Tea Party protests and Snowden protests will be shown as well as Occupy and WTO protests for stock footage. Police brutality clips and others will be used as filler.
This season will let the viewers vote on either a failure ending or a success at the end of each episode. There will be no credits for this season like in past seasons. Only a quick abbreviated credits black screen at the end. The ending itself will take the form of a 21 minute credit sequence that is entirely silent.
DVD or special digital download will include the alternate ending. as well as bonus footage...commentary on every episode by each director, the executive producer and at least one star of that episode. Behind the scenes gag reels and *making of* will be included. Special options will be the actual dialogue from the silent scenes that was recorded but left out.
The Actors: John Cusak, Malin Ackerman and Liam Cunningham (Sir Davos on Game of Thrones).
The Characters (respectively): Emerson Kent, Katherine, Grey.
Katherine is the rather wide-eyed civilian broadcaster who is somewhat in denial about what she does and fantasizes about the missions she is handing out.
Emerson is still shaken from Grey murdering an innocent girl to close the loose ends on a previous assignment (one of the numbers from a station like the one he is now manning). Grey is promoted and gets him this job as a favor...and also so the agency simply doesn't off his former partner (he knows too much).
Cut to the bunker: They are leaving their 2 day shift for a weekend off and we are introduced to their shift alternates who are basically nothing more than red-shirts. There is not enough time to develop their characters other than that they are both young though obviously the man is older in this case and through Emerson's eyes we see that they are in a relationship. Though natural one can see disapproval in Emerson's eyes.
So we get some more of his mental anguish and drinking in a short cut-scene (thank the editor gods for that). Then moving on he picks her up at the train station as usual. They arrive at the bunker and see their alternate's transportation is still there...which at this point shouldn't be unmanned. Then the attack begins and we go through a series of stages including investigation and they find out that even their emergency hardline is compromised. Eventually our protagonists succeed, and not only are all of the antagonists dead (save one technically) but Emerson reveals that Katherine saved Grey's life. Grey still wanted to kill her up until this reveal and gives them 10 days to disappear.
Movie Characteristics:
Location: Suffolk England @ WW2 US Army Base - Retrofitted Radio Bunker
Cinematography: Good use of lighting for the mood and setting. Dramatic rather than functional. Adds to the stress of the situation. The steady rather than shaky cam
Character development: Emerson basically grows a backbone. As for whether or not he's developed feelings for Katherine...it could be mostly a father-daughter relationship in his mind but he does care for her. Grey is nearly a perfect sociopath, but he still values loyalty and since Emerson is loyal (though broken) he rewards that. He knows how to manipulate and to what extent he can get away with emotional control. Emerson would have been too much of a problem if he'd refused to let Katherine walk.
Katherine makes the heroine mistake of leaving the secured room at one point to make the broadcasts stopping the assassinations of CIA and other intelligence officials. She gets a bullet as a reward but lives thanks to Emerson's persistence and timely crashing into a hospital parking lot (he was also shot by the final villain on the way out...jacking his car).
The movie is decent, though the suspense is a bit light. The shady underbelly of the intelligence world only glimpsed rather than confronted. But the veteran character's animosity towards his own people begins to show. The psychologist examining him at the beginning says that "We're not sociopaths". Obviously she is cajoling him. A sociopath would have been fine with their activities and the protagonist isn't any longer. He is detached...but not that distant. He has a code; grown-ups have had their time and crossing with him is their last mistake. Kids to him are off-limits or at least should be. The CIA in this movie obviously feels that not only are domestic black bag operations acceptable but that its ok to murder innocent children to cover up an op's existence.
It is heavy handed but a movie like this has a screen play fit for future TV adaptation. The Numbers Station has a great premise to build either a limited run mini-series or single season show on...or a longer multi-season (3-5 seasons).
I'd re-imagine it this way:
Post movie consequences - fallout from the destruction of this radio base leads to the upending of a conspiracy internally where a few low level CIA officials have been fired and disappeared...a new radio station opens in a different part of England (where of course our protagonists will be stationed...but for the pilot we have a cold open on a similar incident taking place...setting off another round of assassinations.)
This time Grey bites the dust. The series will actually follow 2x sets of protagonists each getting an episode or half episode of time. Some will run concurrently and others will be in serial. The opening and closing credits will tell another story via a silent movie like method. Putting together the credits from across a season will tell a story that is its own that could be self-contained or connect events otherwise only alluded to during the regular season.
Moving forward - post cold open and post credits we are introduced to our first new sets of protagonists. This will be done with a similar psychologist interviewing them after previous assignments that have all taken a toll (for the 2 station chiefs). For the civilians...like in the movie they will either be college drop-outs or hired straight out of college. Complete civilians with minimal skills though they may have been to the farm for cursory training as analysts (replete with basic survival skills).
Each shift won't meet until the third episode during shift change. Episode 2 will follow them on initial move-in and simple assignment broadcasting. Episode 2 will show the second shift team doing prep-work and at the end of the show it will be a quick scene showing them being followed and chronicled by someone(s).
As the season draws on another station could be shown to be hit in a cold open by unknown people. However life for our protagonists goes on fairly normal though they may notice being followed or something else. One shift will be more open and another more coy. Eventually they will leave messages for each other. And following that...they will be attacked separately (but will persevere) and then they will be sharing ciphers.
They will work separately on pieces of the puzzle. And only get a peek at the conspiracy. The conspiracy will take a bigger stage in season 2 as some episodes will focus more on that aspect. Even here however the full extent won't be revealed with only 3-5 of the episodes having this as central. The two teams will be growing closer but hiding it from their superiors. This will keep them safe for the moment though more attempts on their station will be attempted.
Season 3 will kick off with a 2 part 2 hour show. The first part will be much like the film with a siege of the installation with the second part being the relief but deepening of the conspiracy. Their superiors will praise them for defending the installation without a compromise like we have seen happen in other places...but its a gambit...the team is split up...new stations for each pair with 3rd and 4th set added. The 3rd and 4th set are conspirators. conspiracy fun time! As each original team watches the news in their off hours they see important people being assassinated world wide including congressmen and at least one important cabinet member. Things are getting worse. Season 3 will end with the death of the President...killed by his own secret service detail.
Season 4 kicks off with a presidential funeral, but then cuts back to the more hum-drum life of broadcasting numbers. The conspiracy teams return and the assassinations stop. The new President (VP whoever) is in power and things calm down. Each *protagonist* team begins to put pieces together. Each antagonist team begins to suspect that part of the jig is up. Season 4 will concentrate on protagonist teams building allies in their off hours rather than on the numbers. More action here a-la covert affairs with cross channel-tunnel action in Paris as well as England and Scotland. Season 4 will end with each protagonist team blowing up their stations and going rogue for season 5..the final season each team with half a cipher...fighting to get to each other.
Season 5: The cipher if united and used will lay out the final stages for a series of assassinations bringing unwanted people to power. If the protagonists fail...WW3 will start. If they succeed the USA will be rocked to the core and perhaps start another revolution. Scenes of Tea Party protests and Snowden protests will be shown as well as Occupy and WTO protests for stock footage. Police brutality clips and others will be used as filler.
This season will let the viewers vote on either a failure ending or a success at the end of each episode. There will be no credits for this season like in past seasons. Only a quick abbreviated credits black screen at the end. The ending itself will take the form of a 21 minute credit sequence that is entirely silent.
DVD or special digital download will include the alternate ending. as well as bonus footage...commentary on every episode by each director, the executive producer and at least one star of that episode. Behind the scenes gag reels and *making of* will be included. Special options will be the actual dialogue from the silent scenes that was recorded but left out.
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Net Runner - The Reality
Many of us nerds have either played or at least heard of the game Net-Runner. This is part of the Cyberpunk genre of games and literature. A great deal of this comes from watching the pace of technology accelerate and also combining it with the political perceptions of the late 1970's and early 1980's in a critical and dystopian manner.
The reality is that we do live in a crapsack world governed mainly by well capitalized interests and corrupt government officials acting mostly in cooperation if not outright coordination/collusion.
The reality is that we do live in a crapsack world governed mainly by well capitalized interests and corrupt government officials acting mostly in cooperation if not outright coordination/collusion.
- LIBOR rate rigging
- FOREX (foreign currency exchange) Rigging
- Gold and Silver (really all metals) market rigging - nevermind the aluminum cartel
That is all just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what a crapsack world we really live in. We all buy the sausage, but few of us are aware of how it is made and how many dirty hands touch it before it reaches our collective mouths.
On to the actual point of things!
Technology is advancing rapidly though asymmetrically. Intel is busy pushing the next generation of connectivity alongside Google. Intel's SD-card sized computer is in the works, though the current generation uses an Atom processor rather than a Quark processor. This is done mostly for performance reasons, but leaves it bulkier than the original design called for.
The above picture is a reference design to show where things are headed soon. It has wireless connectivity, runs a linux OS, and is a developer board. This means that it is for the use of others to make applicable to our lives. Chips like this can be fitted into any number of items from shoes and other apparel to making an extremely efficient distributed computer system embedded in a soldier's body armor, part of a police uniform or even helping you and your friends create a "personal-LAN".
Imagine integrating these connectivity devices with other wearables like google glass and using an encrypted connection and some VPN software having your own private communications system all hands free.
what you have here is the beginnings of the Star Trek Next Generation comm badge at the very least. It would be able to provide GPS coordinates, link up and have its power augmented/supplemented by other devices, used as part of a personal ID system that replaces credit/debit cards and passports and driver ID's.
this little device could replace all of your miscellaneous identification and payment devices. You won't need it implanted a la mark of satan..simply having it as part of a wrist watch device would be enough. Cover it in an OLED screen and you have a functional watch tied to the system clock that updates via the nuclear clock over your now permanent internet connection.
The internet is also about to become free - as satellites are about to be launched in the next few years to broadcast internet connectivity world wide. At first connection speeds may be slow and latency high. But over time we will have a dick-tracy video/ radio watch.
The internet of things will quite literally let us perform miracles.
Back on to what it can do for soldiers.
- Provide a local network for communications that is short range and encrypted
- Use other wearable devices to give soldiers enhanced situation awareness (expanded spectral vision)
- Act as an emergency homing beacon in a compact and rugged form factor
Soldiers now with computerized systems on their armor basically have laptops on their backs or equipment that is still bulky. A small distributed network however can be placed all around the solider's uniform so that even if one part is disabled the rest will function even if slightly degraded.
Police forces can benefit from the same things and so can individuals. wearable safety devices while out hiking powered not my batteries but the energy of one's own movements. GPS devices that never fail because they are powered the same way. No one ever needs to be lost again. These small units could monitor in real time a person's blood sugar level if they are diabetic giving a real time read-out on your watch of both actual and average over time. Oxygen levels for people with COPD and a whole host of other conditions can be monitored.
This is only the beginning.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
The Gaming Generation
My Generation - tentatively called "Millenials" of which I am one of the earlier born members is the generation that is the first to grow up with the internet in a relatively modern format. Additionally computer games in my generation finally became more than moving dots and dashes around and more than letters and numbers.
Fully realized 3-D rendered and hardware acceleration became normal very quickly and soon the human need for social interaction would merge. Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, EVE Online and even games on Facebook and other platforms emerged. Mobile gaming is finally becoming mainstream as our communications devices now have the gaming power of yesteryear's laptop computers.
Socially we are more interconnected than ever before. Our devices are portals to each other. Some see it as a distancing, or a filter and in some cases these analysts are correct. Anonymity lets many individuals act in manners that are otherwise not permissible in social situations. Other times the technology, such as integrated webcams on laptops, tablets and phones allows for intimate connections across vast distances.
Past generations wrote letters on paper and parchment. Now we write on electrons and magnetic bits. Past generations would use a complicated cipher to encode their writings, now we have 512 bit encryption available publicly. There is something still intimate about a handwritten letter, but email is widely regarded as formal enough for almost any message as long as the formatting is thoughtful.
We used to have naughty deguerreotypes and now we sext each other instantly be it picture or video, or even broadcast it for all to see in a rather shameless manner.
Communication is instant world wide and I for one couldn't be happier. I can speak with people in Russia, Denmark, Iceland and Singapore all at the same time and in real time with no cost beyond paying for access to the world wide web. Aside from the fact that this would indicate a possible demise of legacy telecom systems in the future, the larger point is that we now have the ability to communicate as individuals with one another without the filter of a government in between.
Aside from picking and choosing what government you live under one discovers that a man is a man anywhere in the world and we have far more in common than governments would have us think. We enjoy and have passions for the same things and have the same wishes for our families. It is odd to think that we are somehow in opposition rather than engaged in cooperation. But here we are.
My generation is certainly not one that is enamored with world peace, nor despite accusations to the contrary, so full of hubris that we think we can attain it. However we are the first generation with the infrastructure for such an achievement. Soon a company will be launching into orbit a constellation of micro-satellites that will broadcast internet access world wide. It will not matter if you are sailing in the middle of the most desolate (of humans) ocean on earth, nor hiking a trail in Afghanistan, nor even in Antarctica. Soon borders will mean even less. What I do fear is that governments will jealously guard and attempt to clamp down out of insecurity. Instead of freeing their citizens to interact, make contracts and engage socially the national governments will instead create more barriers to entry and try to keep us closed off from one another.
What good is a government that gives up social control? Why it is the best government that one could have. A freer people will never have existed on earth than is possible at this moment. But world-wide we see restrictions. Turkey closing down Twitter and youtube access is just a public example. The Great Firewall of China is another. The NSA's bulk monitoring of citizens online and mobile activities in and out of the United States is one of the most egregious. And yet instead of backing down when challenged, those forces of authority double down and accuse critics of promoting the enemies of the state. Hyperbole is ratcheted up and we see the militarization of police with MRAPs and an ever increasing number of SWAT teams and federal grants to support this. Rights are restricted and the government talks seriously for the first time about licensing journalism and restricting the rights of the press and free speech.
My generation has the ability to choose what road we go down. We will either go on the road to freedom, or on the road to serfdom.
Game On.
Fully realized 3-D rendered and hardware acceleration became normal very quickly and soon the human need for social interaction would merge. Ultima Online, World of Warcraft, EVE Online and even games on Facebook and other platforms emerged. Mobile gaming is finally becoming mainstream as our communications devices now have the gaming power of yesteryear's laptop computers.
Socially we are more interconnected than ever before. Our devices are portals to each other. Some see it as a distancing, or a filter and in some cases these analysts are correct. Anonymity lets many individuals act in manners that are otherwise not permissible in social situations. Other times the technology, such as integrated webcams on laptops, tablets and phones allows for intimate connections across vast distances.
Past generations wrote letters on paper and parchment. Now we write on electrons and magnetic bits. Past generations would use a complicated cipher to encode their writings, now we have 512 bit encryption available publicly. There is something still intimate about a handwritten letter, but email is widely regarded as formal enough for almost any message as long as the formatting is thoughtful.
We used to have naughty deguerreotypes and now we sext each other instantly be it picture or video, or even broadcast it for all to see in a rather shameless manner.
Communication is instant world wide and I for one couldn't be happier. I can speak with people in Russia, Denmark, Iceland and Singapore all at the same time and in real time with no cost beyond paying for access to the world wide web. Aside from the fact that this would indicate a possible demise of legacy telecom systems in the future, the larger point is that we now have the ability to communicate as individuals with one another without the filter of a government in between.
Aside from picking and choosing what government you live under one discovers that a man is a man anywhere in the world and we have far more in common than governments would have us think. We enjoy and have passions for the same things and have the same wishes for our families. It is odd to think that we are somehow in opposition rather than engaged in cooperation. But here we are.
My generation is certainly not one that is enamored with world peace, nor despite accusations to the contrary, so full of hubris that we think we can attain it. However we are the first generation with the infrastructure for such an achievement. Soon a company will be launching into orbit a constellation of micro-satellites that will broadcast internet access world wide. It will not matter if you are sailing in the middle of the most desolate (of humans) ocean on earth, nor hiking a trail in Afghanistan, nor even in Antarctica. Soon borders will mean even less. What I do fear is that governments will jealously guard and attempt to clamp down out of insecurity. Instead of freeing their citizens to interact, make contracts and engage socially the national governments will instead create more barriers to entry and try to keep us closed off from one another.
What good is a government that gives up social control? Why it is the best government that one could have. A freer people will never have existed on earth than is possible at this moment. But world-wide we see restrictions. Turkey closing down Twitter and youtube access is just a public example. The Great Firewall of China is another. The NSA's bulk monitoring of citizens online and mobile activities in and out of the United States is one of the most egregious. And yet instead of backing down when challenged, those forces of authority double down and accuse critics of promoting the enemies of the state. Hyperbole is ratcheted up and we see the militarization of police with MRAPs and an ever increasing number of SWAT teams and federal grants to support this. Rights are restricted and the government talks seriously for the first time about licensing journalism and restricting the rights of the press and free speech.
My generation has the ability to choose what road we go down. We will either go on the road to freedom, or on the road to serfdom.
Game On.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Officer Training Required
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)