Wednesday, October 27, 2010

How does one vote when insanity rules?

video
...not that candidates supported by MoveOn provide an alternative to state-corporatism...

The two men attacking this woman are Rand Paul campaign officials/organizers, sure to be dropped for getting caught - with predictable claims being that "violence cannot be tolerated" by national leadership, whereas the grassroots militants and perpetrators will claim that they had no choice and in fact, that they showed great restraint.  The attackers will feel indignant at any criticism, since they didn't do anything like rape and kill her, and only were trying to protect Paul.  Frightening in itself and its universal consistency, this reflex of human cognition shows how tremendously difficult it is for us to view our own actions objectively.  In contrast, what about Rand Paul political leadership's claims and thinking?

Their reflex responses will be more insidious and Machiavellian than frighteningly stupid, biased, and violent.  If the upcoming pacifist claims from leadership were really true, militant radicals would not be welcomed into the campaign, especially when it was learned that these organizers proudly displayed aimed and ready-to-fire assault rifles on their websites with text promoting violence in the name of "defense".  Provocation was invited, just like when Bush II said to the terrorists: "Bring it on!" or when Glen Beck urges anyone to "mess" with "America" so that they can be made a brutal, abject lesson that obedience to US violent power is the only way to survive.  Criticize or resist, and you, your family, and everyone else will die in agony.  Beck and many other sincerely believe this is freedom.  Such terrorist, imperial views are regarded as virtuous and quite Christian, even though they are the opposite of Christ's unequivocal teachings of charity, mercy and forgiveness.

Of course, pointing out the defense argument above is a bit redundant since even the most violent, genocidal mass murderers claim they are "defending" against someone else's aggression.  Another bizarre aspect of such interactions is the widespread belief that "Defending the Constitution" and "freedoms" would certainly be claimed by the attackers as top priorities.  Incredibly, the attackers are seen calling for the police who eventually detained the peaceful citizen but did nothing to the violent perps.  Mike Pezzano, the man in the video holding the woman down to punish and prevent her from exercising freedom of speech states/asks on a Meetup website "What's Liberty if you can't exercise it."

I find myself in a common state of amazement.  In US politics, killing is peace (occupied terr), aggression is defense (Iraq & Afghanistan), hatred is love (of free speech), and violence is charity (to protect whatever).  One simply must wonder: have we largely been driven insane?

Monday, October 25, 2010

US Wrestling Federation SmackOut

Are You Ready to RUUUUUMBLE?

U.S. Election day is almost here, and proud Americans are able to participate in that most precious right: the right to choose their government officials.  Presented as consumer products by advertising agencies, the electorate is carefully manipulated by disinformation propaganda toward emotional confidence in one candidate or party, and emotional aversions to opponents.  Religion, which makes a virtue out of ignoring evidence, is an excellent way to get a large percentage of people to shut off their logical thinking, and we see God frequently invoked. Admittedly, monotheism was a great advance in understanding reality at the end of the stone age, but now?   It makes some of us wonder about whether we are smart enough as a species to survive much longer…as our entertainment, religions, and political rituals demonstrate; But it's no use whining - perhaps we should just wade into it:

In this corner, weighing in at billions of dollars and backed by businesses of all stripes, these enthusiastic supporters of religious fundamentalism and military extremism are dynamic, fear-mongering, war-loving ideologues.  Proud and patriotic, their accomplishments include the most dramatic successes of the Nazis: unbridled executive power, contempt for international laws and treaties, repeal of internal prohibitions against torture and reclassification of certain people as not-human (or in the words of Paul Wolfowitz “another breed”) in support of gruesome medical and psychological experimentation, closely aligned with theories of racial superiority and purity.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Mavericks of Marketing and the Momma Grizzlies, the Elephants of Elections, and the Pachyderms of Politics: Lady’s and Gentlemen I give you...the REPUBLICANS!  (Cue cheers)

(Restless murmuring)

In this corner, weighing in with billions of dollars and backed mostly by big businesses, these enthusiastic supporters of religious fundamentalism and military extremism are dynamic, fear-mongering, war-loving ideologues.  Proud and patriotic, their accomplishments include the most dramatic successes of the Fascists and Imperial Japan: unbridled executive power, contempt for international laws and treaties, legal cover for gross violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity, vast surveillance and psychological warfare operations against their own population, and industrial scale killing of more innocent civilians even than their "tough" opponents with an iron fist, while while stroking millions of supporters with a facade velvet glove.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you...the DEMOCRATS!  (Cue cheers)

In truth, I'd like to say that our Founders would be horrified, and yet if our income disparity is any measure, then recent administrations have succeeded in the “first purpose” of government: “protecting the minority of the opulent from the majority” (James Madison).  One might even say that making the minority smaller and more opulent by increasing the misery and poverty of the majority is an improvement, if one were sufficiently pious to see things "properly", such as Glenn Beck.

I just read about a dilemma in Connecticut, where a former professional wrestling executive is running for political office and logo gear from her league is used to express support for her as a candidate, making it campaign speech.  Since campaign speech is prohibited within a certain range of voting places, it has been suggested that shirts and other "messaging" that is understood as partisan should be prohibited.  The problem is that not all fans who wear such gear are making a political statement, so should we allow the freedom of expression defense to allow abuse by partisans, or should we allow the balloting protection defense to restrict freedom of speech?  Unfortunately the question is probably moot, since merely a color (red vs. blue, for example) can be as easily used to represent such speech, and in a winner-take-all system, fairness and long term viability of functioning democracy within a republic is in the interest of no one of consequence.

Its amazing that such a state of affairs is widely considered to be a model of democracy and freedom.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Jesus: Communist Pirate

Jesus, that radical Marxist and his wandering commune of disciples and other followers who violated every reasonable principle of free market economics, shared what they had with each other in the belief that turning their backs on capitalist profit would lead to something good.
  
When Jesus gained access to some bread and fish without paying a dime...
He used his talents to lure new recruits and bribe current followers with free food by "multiplying" the original fishes and loaves to which he had no property rights...
We might note that while the short term results did not serve these utopian do-gooders very well, they were somewhat good for the imperial entertainment industry, providing crucifixion billboards, and the wildly profitable "Arena Survivor", and "The Weakest Luke" spectacles where a panel of lions "voted" contestants to shuffle off this mortal coil.

The unwary may ask: "What's the harm in freely sharing with others?"
To respond, I adopted a recent article on piracy by a left-wing unionist article to reflect the imperial view to provide better perspective.  Note that contributing electricity and computer resources for free to others is not called sharing or donating files, rather it is called theft and piracy.  Either of these terms is much more scary, being associated with perhaps murder, robbery, and/or perhaps rape.  "Sharing and helping" are virtues that we learn at our mother's knee, so it is hard to argue against them.  Read the reworded opinion piece excerpt below to learn how mainstream liberals today defend the imperial view, tyrannical structures, and justification for enslavement condemned by those with who put a greater value on rights of justice than on rights of "property".

Counterfeit fish and loaves were given out on the street. Pirate Christians distributed illegally copied fresh-baked bread and regional fish without any compensation to those who caught and cooked them. While people might think they're getting a steal when they eat an illegal copy of the next big sub-sandwich on the cheap, they're actually stealing from workers. It's theft, plain and simple, and people need to understand the detrimental impact it has on the working men and women employed in the fishing and baking industry and on the greater imperial economy.

The Empire's food industry supports millions of jobs and contributes zillions each year to the economy, according to merchants associations and the imperial treasury.

Theft of bread and fish results in the loss of jobs in these industries and jobs in other industries that otherwise would have been created, such as net-weaving, grain cultivation, and boat & oven building.

The notion that imperial leaders and rich merchants have no real worries is misleading.  Along with the fishermen and baker, there are droves of blue collar workers put at risk by miracles like this.  The scribes and craftspeople -- who handle the aspects of food making that many take for granted, such as farmers, shipwrights, plowmakers, firewood, mills, and saltmakers -- all lose money when people steal, rather than buy, food.

Those who work behind the scenes derive a substantial portion of their livelihood from secondary revenue that their work generates in what are called secondary markets -- foreign distribution, street vendor sales, and Arena meals -- long after initial distribution to such pirates and their disciples.  When bread and fishes are stolen, the downstream revenue dries up, and the health and savings of tens of thousands working men and women suffer, and that of their children. This in addition to the hardship suffered by workers if administrators for the government don't order as much food, since their prospects for taxation are diminished by theft.

Here we see the justification for the argument against "free sharing without payment".  This open freedom worldwide for food or culture is judged not only selfish and shortsighted, but it leads to the destruction of civilization based on corporations.  This is similar to arguments against freedom for slaves, where civilization was based on plantation food production: freedom meant that system would end, i.e.: destruction.  Freedom for Jews, where civilization was based on preserving racial purity of the most productive race, would be destroyed if core, defining virtues of nobility, patriotism, and hard work were abandoned. Such arguments are 96% sensible and in each case,  the Roman Empire, the Reich, and the Confederacy actually did pass into history, so in a way "destruction of the civilization" did occur.  Like chimp DNA, that 4% difference has huge consequences in behaviors relative to what we would call morality.

Its a shame that such a small difference of opinion is so difficult to perceive and bridge, especially to those who fear "stepping over" to the other side.

GMO Safety Defined as "Nutritional Equivalence"

As far as I can tell, the definitions of safety used by the scientific community are not the same as those used by the general public. The a...