We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?
Tag Archives: Justice
For Discussion:
Here is a recent article and the discussion I contributed. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts (insightful and intelligent discussion please):
James Bianco ·
The military offers themselves in defense of their country as patriots and they are well compensated for it. My family is composed of nothing but veterans and anyone who serves this country expecting laud, or special treatment or for any reason other than a humble desire to protect freedom is not a patriot, just a mercenary who doesn’t deserve to wear the uniform. Sailors who quibble because they couldn’t get into a club and then demand additional freebies because of it are no different than the mafia offering protection for a price. True patriots fight because America and her freedoms are worth fighting for, not for glory and gold. Thank you for those who don’t need fleet week, only their conviction. To the rest, please learn real service or get out. I doubt General Washington, General Lee, General Grant or even General Eisenhower cared about fleet week or any bar turning them down.
An aside, Dress Blues are only appropriate in certain situations, this being one of them, and currently the formal tuxedo and ball gown are the highest form of dress according to civilian etiquette viz Emily Post. The bouncer was in the wrong but the sailor’s cousin was even more so. Dishonoring the uniform with a petty squabble trumps a guy doing his job who was simply misinformed.
As to the navy officer suing, under what area would she sue? She was not discriminated against, it was a universal dress code. Hurt feelings don’t fall under tort. And there is no precedence or statute entitling the military to get into any civilian establishment without permission, there’s even an amendment prohibiting quartering. It was just a misunderstanding that if the bouncer were fired or suspended for HE could sue for wrongful termination. Get over it, the hotel has already done more than it should have. An apology would have sufficed. Serve to protect, expecting praise is serving only yourself. To those who truly serve out of dedication, I am eternally grateful. I will not thank extortionates or their apparently abundant supporters.
Feel free to call me the names I anticipate, though I would rather hear well thought arguments if you disagree. After all, intelligent discourse is the only way I can evaluate and correct my ideas as necessary.
Biff S.-
The sailor probably had to wear the uniform for fleet week – it’s a big PR thing for the Navy – believe me, most don’t like having to wear their uniforms in public outside of duty as the uniforms get dirty easily, especially the whites and they aren’t that easy to properly maintain -I don’t think they wanted freebies, they just wanted to go where any other civilian could go – I don’t think most military members except special treatment, they just want equal treatment, they don’t want to be penalized by the Country they serve for wearing the uniform – there are those who only signed up for the education benefits, etc, but usually those people drop out when they find out they have to be deployed to a war zone – you don’t know how many people popped positive on drug tests once a deployment was announced – As far as true patriots of the past – if we had lived during those times, it would be different – Grant was called a butcher of his own men and was accused of being a drunk, a subaltern, and worse – Lee owned Slaves as did Washington -in fact he used teeth from his slaves to construct his dentures (he tried ivory, and many other things) – Eisenhower had a mistress during the war and was never a combat soldier, he was always a desk jockey – but time makes heroes, saints and patriots of many. But you do make a point about true patriotism vs self interest. As a retired military member myself, sometimes I fall into the trap of being bitter about the chronic unemployment and homelessness of vets while at the same time, many of the same people who deny entry to a military person in uniform or refuse to hire veterans will still self righteously say “thank you for your service” That is the kind of thing I am against – but well meaning people that say it is fine – I should have made that more clear.
Reply · Unlike · 1 · 19 hours ago
Jake W. High School Student
jimmie – AND how Well do you think that our military members are Compensated?
Research the Top Pay for a Top Admiral or General.
James Bianco ·
Biff S. Excellent points and this incident probably did not initially involve self-interest, but due to its escalation and the posting of this article it shows a demand for more than what was due and will inspire less scrupulous members of the forces to take advantage of a uniform that should symbolize patriotism but will become a tool of capitalism at its worst. You are correct about both the arrogant self-righteousness of those who can’t appreciate sacrifice and duty but claim to know what service was really provided as well as the horrible way we treat our vets. That change must come from the people but too few of them know or care (when I research an article it can take me days to find sufficient info on vets and previous engagements that were not popular, just to write and try to raise awareness and educate on how many people are living in squalor and who gave decades of their life in service), and even less active duty know or care because they are young and are not thinking of the future. I think we are on the same page for the most part, though I know this story will only serve to divide and no real conversation will come of it. Though many things have changed over the centuries, one truth remains- avarice will reign until real conversation and real action happens. I pray it doesn’t happen to my parents, but my father was a Senior Master Sergeant in the Air Force and he was an Aircraft Mechanic-it is still difficult to find a job. You’d think 30yrs of service would mean something at least in education and experience. Again, change has to come from the citizenry. My concern is that this one escalation will divide people even more and self-interest will override patriotism. Thank you for your points, it’s nice to hear a good argument that is well-thought out and not just some bigot assuming I hate America!
James Bianco ·
Just a reminder to everyone, Memorial Day does NOT remember active duty, it only commemorates those who died while in service. Please quit using Memorial Day as a reason for any action, good or bad, at, from, towards, or near those who are still alive and currently serving. We honor them to honor them, not because it’s Memorial Day.
Andy P. University of Florida Professor
James, that is by far the best first paragraph I have ever read in any comment section.
The “humble desire to protect freedom” is honor enough in itself. Thank you.
I am sooo tired of the fake patriotism (thank you for your service) tossed like cheap confetti at airports.
If you’re so thankful, go volunteer at the local VA or homeless shelter.
James Bianco ·
Jake W. I have, and when one adds in exchange discounts, value of Tricare compared to market insurance, access to facilities and the cost of similar access for a private citizen, value of retirement, quality of actual healthcare available versus quality of average citizen healthcare, educational opportunities, death benefits to families, availability of base housing, training, etc. you can come up with a real compensation value (compensation is the value of average pay plus the value of any and all benefits both actual and in-kind). Compared to a police officer or national guard member (the DOL’s comparative occupations) the compensation of most NCOs is far above. Take in to consideration the current average compensation of the citizens the military is designed to protect and even a private looks comparatively wealthy. That is not to say they are but at least a private can live on their salary, someone who works even overtime on minimum wage can not. Ultimately it boils down to members of the military volunteer to serve to protect freedom, the compensation should reflect the danger they are put in relative to the degree of danger (and based on need) others experience (physical, psychological, and social). It should also reflect the public’s perception of their value. FYI pay for any member of the military will vary by allowances, special skills, hardship, combat pay, and any number of other factors. The only “military” (he’s a civilian) pay that is set is the Commander-in-Chief who receives roughly $569,000 directly from the tax coffers, he is not the highest paid, as you requested.
So the short answer is, given all known factors, the average pay and benefits of the military is a reflection of the public’s value, can sustain a family during service, provides more than comparable occupations, and is more than the public’s value on itself. Active duty is well compensated for the task of being a patriot, poorly for a mercenary, and the question misses the point of the entire conversation. The sarcasm was nicely done though.
James Bianco ·
Spot on Andy, personally I like Habitat for Humanity as my volunteering of choice. We see a lot of young vets struggling to make it but with that military grit to never say die. I am always impressed with how they keep their heads up despite circumstances that would crush the rest of us.
PLEASE COMMENT:
The Neighbors
So to create art I just need to do what, in the writing world, would amount to at best plagiarism and at worst/most current series (i.e. random photos in black and white and the infamous “The Neighbors” series) lacking in any semblance of creativity, method (apart from post-production apologies), or even remote interest (apart from those who would call anything “art” without distinguishing Rembrandt from an amateur photographer who learned photoshop and random camera settings and got lucky enough to find an attorney who believes ALL photos are speech, presumably even child pornography). Not everything is art, not everyone with a camera is an artist, and even if he had produced either, not all art or any type of speech is supposed to be protected without some common sense restrictions (which unfortunately the court failed to provide).
Thus no crying “FIRE” in a crowded theater or producing work that is neither original or ethically created (e.g. he could have easily walked across the road and asked for permission, the fact that he avoided even thinking this way, i.e. that his “subjects” were people with their own rights and that he was surprised there was controversy over a man peeping through his window to take photos without so much as the common decency to talk to these Neighbors he was purportedly so “fascinated” by, is indicative of his knowledge that he could not get permission so he would just take what he wanted and call it art, AKA theft with a nice big loophole). Even his most “creative” series, “Faggots”, is inconsistent with his thought process in that he DID feel the need to get permission for these photos but not from the families of the criminals he reproduced (presumably a delightful experience for them to have this family history republished in the digital age, so it can now be accessible to all).
In short, when you can be easily classified as a peeping tom, your most labor intensive work is photographing what other people actually DID create (i.e. photographing other people’s forensic work, which were it possible to copyright such work would be illegal plagiarism; as it stands it is simply clearly plagiarized work) or even photographing men in suits (save the money, Walmart will do the same thing cheaper), you are surprised people objected to you doing what you had the courtesy to do in a couple of previous works that were relevant, and you have the remarkable ability to convince people that third rate amateur photography of things that require no special skills, equipment (using a $20 camera I was able to produce a black and white photo of a man in a suit that gave more clarity than his displayed work, in under 10 seconds), conveys no meaning at all on its face (look at “Madonna and Child” and the meaning is clear instantly), or are even interesting until you are told why you SHOULD be impressed, you are indeed an artist. A Con Artist.
An Aside- The attorney and her arguments in court for Svenson are as equally artistic as his work (i.e. she weaseled her way around he law by solely utilizing the loophole of a lack of a clear definition of what “art” is and ensuring her arguments relied solely on the letter, not both the letter and spirit of the law, AKA she got paid quite a bit to fight against those who desire some at least partial privacy, misconstrued words in both case law where she was losing due to the Supreme Court’s rulings against most of her arguments, and statutory tort law which is so ambiguous as to be laughable, a practical joke can be considered a tort). Come on people, not EVERYTHING is art and photography has to be pretty unique to ever qualify as art (the viewer interprets, the artist should never have to explain beyond basic principles of what style used, not meaning. No sane person would fathom a world where the artist, not the participant, defines what is and what isn’t art. The alternative is to equate the people that produce child pornography, this article (cute how the interview gives little in way of useful information, is extremely biased, and requires the reader to investigate every swath of this man’s work), and the poems of every 3rd grader as art, just as meaningful and artistic as Michelangelo, John Locke, and Robert Frost.
“hdc77494” you are absolutely right. Street Photography CAN be artistic; his work was neither Street Photography nor could any rational person (“Faggots” apparently was an amateur and vastly useless, unless producing the Sears or JCPenny catalogue, piece of sociological pseudo-experiment which he was neither qualified to perform or draw ANY conclusions from) think he is an artist unless they have been swayed by his claims and his attorney’s assertion that he really is an artist, so he should be allowed to take pictures which any corporation would have mountains of paperwork to fill out just to look at regular people, with no restrictions, no retractions, no apologies, not even a nod that he had done anything wrong by doing “Neighbors”, just a well-funded lawyer against a family that, because they don’t print pictures of random objects and have no flowery words to describe it as “art” when they photograph other people’s work (in black and white, and for some reason it’s art?) while reaping the monetary benefits thereof, are only modestly represented. Clean and simple, this is not art, it took no skill (by his own admission), it violated privacy unnecessarily and continued to do so, most of it is plagiarism, and his hiring of an attorney who doesn’t have the legal knowledge to make a statement that doesn’t patently say, “I support any photography as art, even highly unethical and/or illegal photography. Oh, and by the way I intend to use this case to make no distinction between Picasso and John Wayne Gayce’s work.” to the press and all of America. So good show both of you, you have taken freedom of speech and turned it into an absolute right, no matter who it infringes upon or who it hurts! By the way, a decent artist would have gotten permission from his NEIGHBORS or at least removed the photos when he found out that his unethical action was causing severe distress due not to morality, but a common set of decent human standards.
Addendum- the argument has been raised that no identifiable faces were shown. The entire exhibit does show profile faces but faces aren’t the ONLY way we identify people. Clothing, the clear picture of the dog, the general knowledge of Svenson’s apartment location, the photos of the particular style of apartment, precedence (Supreme Court ruled numerous times that what happens in one’s own apartment/house/trailer is afforded to the occupant and that invasion by any means, without probable cause or a warrant, is a violation of one’s right to privacy. Reading through the court documents, it is clear that Svenson could afford a more well known and better quality attorney due to his higher income. In other words, the “Neighbors” never really stood a chance against him, thus no further appeal, they cost money!), furnishings, actions commonly performed and the familiarity of the neighborhood (apart from Svenson), and many other factors can easily identify without a face. The names of the neighbors are also a matter of public record due to the suit (minor) and the Svenson generated media attention (major source). Besides, reason would say that one should never capture another’s image, voice, writing, etc. without permission. ALL of that is Intellectual Property and just as one would not want their car used without permission (physical property) and it is a crime to do so; so to would someone want to protect what they and they alone can produce (Intellectual Property). The difference is the laws governing Intellectual property and modern technology are several decades behind the laws governing physical property.
Ref: Svenson Interview
FERGUSON, MO.- Or How “Kinder” was Redefined
Ferguson has gone on long enough. It has become a polarizing event that has produced a virtual stalemate between state and local officials and the discontent they have failed to prevent (the sole job of a public servant is to enact the wishes of the majority while protecting marginalized portions of the populace, i.e. the minority). Now a new tactic is being tried by state officials, as the statement by the Lt. Governor of MO (Peter Kinder-R)so clearly illustrates.
An aside should be mentioned here in that the Lt. Governor’s tactics are nothing new, he is simply saying the motto of most Americans: “It’s not my fault I can’t do my job, it’s x’s fault. In fact I did do my job, but the other side won’t quit saying I didn’t so I have to cast the blame because my own personal ambitions prevent me from recognizing any fault of my own.” In it’s shortened version it is, “It wasn’t my fault, everyone else is just wrong (though I can’t prove it, and the evidence says it really was my fault).”
This kind of thinking and the gross ignorance of “leaders” across America and concentrated in DC has led both sides to the wrong conclusion. The following things must be remembered:
1) Race is a myth. No one is black, white, asian, etc. because to think they are is to assume that there are subspecies (race, by definition, requires enough of a difference in DNA to delineate who is black, white, etc. The overwhelming empirical evidence dispels this possibility) and that race, even if it did exist, is significant in any way other than possibly correlating medical issues (much like taking a family history). Race, however, does not exist. We are humans and we all have the same DNA that makes us different than other types of life, but is not different from “race” to “race.” All that said, as long as we fixate on a pattern that doesn’t exist, we will be a polarized and exceptionally gullible people. This is not to diminish that this Ferguson affair is based upon perpetuating the myth but is based entirely upon how much melanin one produces and boils down to bigotry that can’t even justify its selection of who to be bigoted against (a “white person” with a tan can produce the same reaction). We as a people MUST dispel this myth lest we be destroyed for a lie and bomb each other back to the stone ages out of ignorance and refusal to examine the evidence.
2) Bigotry is not a myth. People in power, when they are incapable of understanding what any kindergartner knows intuitively, i.e. we are humans, not races, regardless of sexual orientation, and in no substantive way (excepting congenital illnesses like congenital heart failure) different from each other apart from our choices, will endorse, perpetuate, and use any means to gain more power while vilifying whoever necessary to accomplish this. Even the “Truth” anti-tobacco people who were created to inform, break the rules for their own selfish (and wildly bigoted) agenda. Any doubt in this can be dispelled by watching the “Left Swipe Dat” commercials as the song states, “Do not judge people based on the content of their character but what they hold in their hands.” Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud.
3) Any police officer or politician who wonders why they are viewed progressively more negatively is unfit for office. Our police officers (though exact numbers are hard to obtain because of loyalty to the office instead of loyalty to the well-being and education of the people. That said it should be assumed a significant minority espouses this traitorous state) seize property without just cause and under unjust laws, harass the populace with unnecessary expenditures and selective enforcement of the law, abandon their oath in the interest of power, money, or simply as much criminal thinking as those they choose to arrest (or ticket, e.g. officers will not typically ticket their fellow officers even when that officer is not on duty or has even retired, and they will be hesitant to arrest them as well. This selective enforcement could scarce be considered any semblance of justice and has all the rancid hallmarks of the “old boys club,” as it were.), and are oblivious to the almost universal depiction of them as fat, indolent dunderheads, a sign of their inability to observe, much less, enforce the law. Our politicians do the same things, though they may not arrest, but our politicians are even worse. Despite being tasked with serving the public, they have set the nation on edge with their undesired wars that have thus far provided only orphans, widows, widowers, and grief wrought parents along with ever increasing national debt, and a world where America is nearly universally loathed, polarizing its people with an archaic and destructive party system (rather than running as a representative of the people they run as a representative of a party that few people understand but dedicate themselves to out of ignorance and want of any patriotic spirit; willing to sacrifice their freedom for perceived safety and willing to sacrifice democracy to partisan politics out of sheer laziness), murdering the populace by expending enormous amounts on their wars at the expense of the poor, the educational system, the nation’s intelligence, and opening the door for any foreign invader who sees we have left very few to defend the actual nation, and they do all of this with televised idiocy, some not understanding our own history and most not understanding how this social contract is supposed to work (GOVERNMENT BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED; NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION; GIVE ME LIBERTY—OR GIVE ME DEATH!). Is there any doubt that the national trust has been broken by a minority of police and a majority of politicians and both, every officer and every politician, must regain that trust (one bad apple spoils the bunch, and we got a lot of bad apples)?
4)Stop protesting, do something real if you want to eject oppression. Boston Tea Party, Continental Congress (a criminal assembly at the time, as far as George III was concerned, that addressed the political issues and helped orchestrate the forming, funding, and supply of militia), Common Sense by Thomas Paine, boycotting British goods, etc. were all used together to attack on as many fronts while still offering peace when the King treated them fairly. Ultimately it comes down to if you feel you are under oppression so great that it cannot be withstood anymore and the recourse to law is useless, the Declaration of Independence gives you the RIGHT to alter or abolish the government that is causing it, but your protests are not working and neither is the interminable publicity over the affair.
Ferguson has gone on long enough, do something substantive to change things or shut up. There is a time for protest but when that fails one must have the courage to fight oppression and be willing to die for liberty. Only a coward hides behind a sign when he genuinely believes, and can show proof for that belief, that he has been betrayed and abused past the point of legal remedy. I have no opinion on Ferguson specifically but if the protester’s cause is liberty, equality and a nation free of what amounts to the monarchy of both state and federal governments in their own spheres, then my support is yours and my counsel to you is this: Rise up and fight for what you believe in, but do not do it hastily. Gather the Sons of Liberty and get the job done right. If your concern is only this one event, then handle it and leave the people free to examine the many injustices that happen everyday and prevent those in power from continuing to distract the people more than they already do.
Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder (R) said that the protests in Ferguson that followed the death of Michael Brown were “based on a lie” and that there was…
MSN.COM
A Gay Old Time
The following is what is “abuzz” so to speak on the internet. A study was performed in 2008 using facial recognition to judge male sexual orientation. It is unclear why females were excluded as presumably the same rules the study proposes should be reproducible in a female study. I have placed the link here to review both the research and the article it was cited in.
Men’s Sexual Orientation Judged In a Fraction of a Second
This “study” used far fewer participants than is required to yield a useful confidence interval much less make any statement. In addition the parameters published eliminated some, but not all influencing factors (e.g. cosmetic use, facial expression, etc.), it was not double-blind (when it very easily could be), did not include following through and ensuring the stated orientations of the faces on their profile matched their actual orientations (thus, we have no basis for how accurate the perception was versus how accurate the source material was; without that the only statement available is that when people were shown faces either they were right and the face was right, they were right but the face was wrong, they were wrong but the face was right and they were wrong and the face was wrong. Essentially, “given the data the subject’s perception was between 0-100% accurate because we didn’t bother to research”), did not include a control group (other studies have used technology to alter the faces for more masculine and/or feminine features which, if this is a good study, should yield a linear correlation between the accuracy of the participant and the accuracy of the faces when they are altered-that’s how the conclusion is shown to be due to the brain and not the researcher, setting, etc. A neutral face that has been altered to have neither masculine or feminine features which would show no correlation), and did not meet the 6-sigma required to make positive statements. All that is Statistics 101.
The title is indicative of the researcher and the quality of methodology used. Science is not here to prove anything, it simply states whether there is enough evidence to support a conclusion while acknowledging all shortcomings and pitfalls of the research and acknowledging the other possible conclusions in light thereof. This farce of a study is not science, it is 2 people grasping at the straws of a nice, clean-cut, black-and-white view of human sexuality rather than accepting that human sexuality, like nearly every human trait, is very subjective and operates more on a “shades of gray” principle.
The saddest thing of all, however, is that not only is this not good science, it’s not good reporting. Whether someone can tell if a person is straight or gay or whatever, is useless information even if it were accurate. It only seeks to grind in stereotypes and discourage actual research. Let me know what you think!
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
These past few weeks have been rather eventful though hardly novel. A quick review of the best and worst moments might add a little perspective to the pulse of the United States and the world.
The Good: Not unexpectedly the good comes from a change to once dearly treasured (though not backed by solid research) traditions. Oregon, that great trail of a state (sorry, couldn’t resist the old game reference), has elected a bisexual woman to the highest office of the state, Governor. Though the election has long since past, this woman is preparing to enter her first term as the Honorable Governor of the State of Oregon. Whether this is her only term is debatable, but one thing is sure, she is the first person to open up to the press about this highly personal issue (odd how heterosexual people don’t have to justify their qualifications for office with detailed descriptions of their bedroom activities) and to stand behind her clear beliefs (her platform is well-defined, somewhat partisan though no more than anyone else, and was well enumerated to the people prior to the election on numerous occasions). She is the first lawfully elected Governor that has stated she is bisexual and unabashedly stands behind it. (Before I get a note, here is an addendum: Though she was elected as Secretary of State, she assumes her office lawfully and can thus be considered to be elected to the position of Governor, should the Governor resign, die, etc. as part of the Constitution of Oregon which the people retain.)
Why it’s good: In the LGBTQIQ (Political correctness for the recognized orientations- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, and Questioning- Intersex includes things like hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, and other conditions in which the “parts” as it were are not matching up to the gender a person identifies with. The 2 “Q’s” are best left to the experts(PFLAG) to explain.) bisexualism is seen as the “black sheep” as it were of the community. Gays typically view them as closeted homosexuals and heterosexuals view them as simply promiscuous. A cursory search of the social networks can easily confirm this. Currently the United States seems to vacillate between approving and disapproving of these classifications, but that has nothing to do with the good here. The good is that, for once, the system worked precisely as it should: a candidate expressed her viewpoints and plan of action clearly and concisely during the campaign and started her term as Governor with what appears to be an honest and open administration, the people elected her and soon she will assume office, despite the hemming and hawing of the Right wingers across the nation whose argument against her is only her bisexuality (her platform would have been an easier target since it does all the things they don’t want done, but hey, I’m not their strategist). Her being bisexual is something that shows promise for that state, not because of the orientation issue, but because she was honest about her life (as far as is possible for us to know) and was willing to run with a label that has never been widely approved of attached to her. She did not run away, hide an affair (Gay Governor of New Jersey resigned for this), or try to make it look like anything more than what it is nor did she apologize for her being her. This is the good, hope that politicians might see this and take heed, and that we have a Governor willing to run as she is.
The Bad: The bad is probably readily apparent, but with all the terrible things going on it may have gotten lost in the woodwork: Obama’s War Powers Proposal and Congress’s Response. Essentially it seems that the only way Congress will cross Party boundaries is with their desire to do absolutely nothing. The whole story amazed me but can be broken down quite simply: Boehner and other Hawks in Congress requested Obama do something about ISIS (because using their ability to declare war would require work and would inch them closer to the Constitutional powers they are given). Obama, in a bid to have a moderate strategy came up with a vague but more potent version of 2001’s war powers. Republicans and Hawk Democrats complained it was too mild. Democrats and Dove republicans claimed it was too strong. Both agreed to decline the powers and did NOTHING more. They are the only branch that can declare war but for 14 years they have relied on Executive Orders authorizing military action (the Executive’s version of war-in essence it’s all the death of war, but doesn’t pay our soldiers wartime pay, which is substantially larger than current pay and can be roughly equated to hazardous duty pay or overtime, albeit VERY roughly, and as a bonus it doesn’t require Congress to do their job or put their own necks on the chopping block as it were) and the good old-fashioned, tried and true method of “blame someone else so I can get elected again”.
Why it’s bad: Why its bad should be a little evident already and requires little explanation: 1)Congress declares war and there’s a reason for that- the people are represented in Congress (ideally) and since military action of any kind involves ALL of America, the people should at least be consulted prior to sending their sons and daughters to die. 2)War pays more both in the life and death of a soldier as is commensurate with the dangers and risks inherent in war (or ANY military action beyond EXTREMELY limited engagements-2 weeks tops) and the trauma to entire communities when they lose loved ones. It also provides more supplies to our troops and comes with international restrictions like the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention that protect our troops and engender world support (and that we are not currently observing). 3)MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS ARE WAR- excepting in certain circumstances (limited engagements that limit exposure). A famous line from Shakespeare says it all, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” or my version, “You can call a turd a life-vest but if you do, I’m never sailing with you!” Take your pick. finally 4)The three branches of government should all work together, checked by their equals through the Constitution, NOT bickering like children, NOT expanding their own powers beyond what they are lawfully or even ethically entitled to, and NOT IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! It amazes me how Congress didn’t think to go back to their districts, ask the voters what they want (war or not war) and then return to Washington to REPRESENT their constituents. They didn’t even look at the polls, just their own desires. Tho I will not argue it here in full, if a government (which governs by consent of the governed) is ignoring the very people it is duty-bound to protect, it loses its authority to govern.
AND NOW THE UGLY:
The Ugly is a picture everyone should be familiar with, and ashamed of. Vote by your convictions, not Red/Blue, Dems/Reps, N/S or any other reason.
How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”
A little background information: John McCain on CodePink
First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives): The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.” Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice. Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).
Now the current way things work: The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate. Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).
All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa. A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum. Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).
If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out. While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant. I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation. That is what Freedom of Speech means! I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard. Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry. If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.
So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups. Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound: CodePink. Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes). To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work): Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time: Congressional Breakdown. This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time. Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours: Work days Supreme Court Calculator. The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.
CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace. They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.). If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.
I fear, however, that we have past this point. The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary. I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough, We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence. If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me. If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse. I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.
Foundational Documents:
The Bare Minimum
What is the job of the state? Ultimately it breaks down to (according to social contract theory) a responsibility to protect and provide for its citizens what they either can not provide for themselves or are in need of protection from. The job of capitalism is to make the most money with the least cost. Usually this eventually leads to paying the employee the least amount they have to pay. Without the intervention of the state, this amount will gradually approach 0. The state is needed to protect the worker from abuses that are inherent in a free market system. All of this is, of course, very basic but appears to be a concept that we have forgotten. Currently the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Let us assume that the rare miracle of a full time job pops up (a quick aside, when employers can’t decrease pay they will invariably decrease hours). Let us also assume that taxes will only decrease that wage by $0.25 per hour. Now we have a person that has the following income monthly: $1,120, which turns out to be $13,440 per year. Bear in mind that this person will pay on average $949 in rent alone per month (http://www.myapartmentmap.com/rental_data/) amd thus really makes around $200 per month for food, clothing, car affairs (gas, tax, registration, maintenance, etc.), and all the other trappings of life.
For some strange reason, no one has a problem with this. Those that do, manage only to increase the wage in their state to a few pennies more. Meanwhile, our paymasters in congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive are sitting on large salaries, multiple perks (pool, spa, vacations, only work about half a year but still get housing, etc.), and a complete disconnect from the plight of those who can’t even afford to see D.C. much less have a voice there. All of this is acceptable to the American Public it would seem. While those who work their fingers to the bone can barely survive, those who can’t even be bothered to lay aside their own wants for others unless its a press shoot, relax comfortably in their expensive offices, grumble at the “help”, and get drunk on the misery and misfortune they don’t even acknowledge exists.
What is the point of all this? Our government has been tasked with ensuring justice and liberty for all. It has failed. For over a decade now the people have cried out for an increase in wages to make ends meet. The government has shown it is deaf to those cries. Though it has the means and knowledge of how much is required to live with dignity, it has deliberately failed to put that to any use. We must choose to either accept things as they are and allow the injustice to continue, or claim our right to a government that cares and rise up against those who are apparently trying to starve their own citizens. Unfortunately the pleas of the people and the current system has failed to produce results. It is our duty, therefor, to get a living wage for all, whatever the means.
Erosion of Public Trust
Recently several officers around the nation, but in particular New York City, have been targeted solely because of their uniform. The affair is being handled in typical American fashion. A sufficient amount of contempt for the offenders is brewed, and the remainder of the incident is passed off as just an unfortunate side effect of the Ferguson riots. What is not addressed is that this is not simply a result of Ferguson, that this is merely a symptom of a larger disorder, or even that the overall situation is getting worse daily with no respite in sight.
At one point people in general trusted the police and even admired them. Cartoons and TV shows portrayed the police as competent and some crime dramas were even televised to show how the police were helping keep people safe. Now, TV shows almost exclusively show an officer as, at best a bumbling moron, and at worst corrupt to the core. People don’t view officers as there to help them, but to restrain their liberty and prevent any and all fun. Ferguson was just the very tip of the iceberg of the festering contempt America has developed for its law enforcement.
The rest of that iceberg has been growing steadily over the years. As more and more publicity over the bad that law enforcement has done gathers, and as people realize that their protectors are human and liable to the same mistakes they make, then confidence in law enforcement’s ability to do its job is eroded and eventually, given no redeeming information, trust collapses.
Does this mean that all law enforcement officers are good and we should trust them? A resounding no! Are all bad, again no! They are human. They do their job but we too must do ours and learn the law and the rights they can not transgress. We must care enough to ask, “who polices the police?” We must be willing to reform our selection of those we place in public trust (not just police, but the many other positions that need reforming). We must hold those entrusted to a higher standard and when one violates that trust, it must be seen as more than just an error. We must rid ourselves of the “old boys club” mentality and hire and retain based on ability and merit, not nepotism or favoritism.
As it stands, our officers are unable to do their job because the public has lost its trust in them. In order to restore that trust, law enforcement must acknowledge and correct its mistakes and give them the gravity they deserve. Only through this is it possible to bring back some of what has been lost in public trust. The days of the corner cop being your friend though are long gone.
The New Hampshire Rebellion
The idea that the system is broken and needs to be fixed is by no means a new or novel one. Novelty arises in all the ways it could be fixed or should be fixed. To this end one in particular stands out as a plausible, albeit optimistic, way of changing things while still keeping the basic framework intact. Lawrence Lessig is the face of this and similar movements in The New Hampshire Rebellion which endeavors, in a nutshell, to use the loopholes and lack of campaign finance regulation to raise enough money to elect people who will ultimately get rid of those problems thus allowing future congressmen to be a truer representation of the people and therefore willing to pass laws that will address all of the other woes America has. In principle this seems to be a very accurate representation as to the root cause of our social ailments. At the moment, Representatives and Senators both are far richer than their constituency. They are also allowed to accept enormous sums of money from special interest groups which undoubtedly sways their vote on a great many things. This makes the run for Congress far less about platforms and issues and far more about who can pay enough to get their image out there favourably. All of these things are very true and in addressing the central issue of cash flow, the NHR would seem to have nailed it on the head.
Now I am by no means belittling Lawrence Lessig nor am I belittling his intelligence (he is nowhere near a stupid man and has many accomplishments to prove this). I do find fault though with his project in this, he has not accounted for the issues that allow the system to function this way to start with or at least has not underscored their importance. A little thought experiment can help illustrate one of the issues. Let us say that the NHR raises a sufficient amount of money to accomplish their goal (presumably electing at least 51% of both House and Senate and the President or 2/3 of both Houses without the President who are sympathetic to his cause and willing to actually implement it), and let’s say that the money is distributed to the individual candidates and said money is spent on advertising, campaigning, debating, and the whole lot. Then let us think about election day bearing in mind the platform has been campaign finance reform and apply the trends of the last several elections in regards to turnout. A problem should immediately come to mind, i.e. even spending as much or more than the other candidates the actual turnout is still not representative of even half of what the nation wants. Even if it were, it does not represent those who are almost perpetually forbidden to vote (the felons, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants in some places, even just minorities in some communities where they are “discouraged” from voting, etc.). It belies a very powerful idea that no amount of reform can change, i.e. we do not have “government by consent of the governed,” nor can we as long as we remain bound in our own chains and bound again by the immense effort put forth to keep us distracted from those chains.
Voter turnout aside (for that is within the change Lessig proposes) it is exceptionally optimistic to think the wealthy and powerful would stand by and simply let their gravy train be derailed. It is also optimistic to think that by uniting people under one flag that the other issues would be solved. After all, special interest groups do have a role to play in helping to protect the rights of those not able to get into the halls of Congress, they have simply gotten out of hand in their available power. Who is to say that by reforming Congress that it will not need reforming quickly again? After all, the source of power does not change, and even a Congress of this type can not strip money of its power; only the Fed (non-elected) could conceivably do that on any degree.
All this said, Lessig is a brilliant man and his ideas deserve merit, even this one. The issue of campaign finance reform is a vital one, and one that should have been reviewed long ago. It is simply too optimistic to think that the broken system can be fixed with the broken system. It is like hammering a nail in with a nail. Perhaps at one time if this issue had been addressed in this manner and if the people of America still had the time to wait for this change to happen would this be a realistic goal. The simple fact of the matter is that the system has given itself over to despotism and additional delays will only cause more unnecessary suffering. Now is the time for action, and Lessig is a valuable asset to that action, but the current plan as it stands simply won’t work. Something a little more drastic is required.
Senate Intelligence Committee Report On Torture or Nuremberg Denied
The recently released report from the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA’s activities is by no means a surprise, at least not to anyone who had any common sense about what goes on at secret jails, and at Gitmo. It is, of course, a very disturbing account but from the record appears to rely very heavily on the CIA’s own documentation and records of what happened (and presumably what continues to happen according to Brennan’s testimony and media clips, but more on that later) and lends little room for doubt on the truthfulness of the report. It is also not surprising that Brennan avoids the use of the word “torture” like the plague, evades questions on his confirmation hearing, and accuses the Democrats on the committee of exaggerating what happened (bear in mind he offers no details on their side of the story, he just says the Committee failed to interview them. This is of course the sentiment shared by Fox”News” but they appear to be so adamantly against Democrats, independents, and essentially anyone who isn’t a bigoted and hypocritical WASP that it would be remiss for them not to enjoy torturing the nation with their broadcasts), after all if he admitted it he and his associates would be guilty of a host of war crimes and self-preservation does not cease at the basic needs level; he undoubtedly enjoys his enormous paycheck and luxurious lifestyle and would be willing to lie to the nation and he world on what is going on. The CIA is, by nature, an organization of deceptions and could not exist without them. It is not even surprising that the CIA, Republicans, and conservatives in general have accused the Democrats of drawing attention away from important issues like Obamacare (just to keep up torture falls below a flawed healthcare bill on the scale of importance of things to address in any substantial way according to this logic. And for the record, half of the committee were Republicans so…) and have rationalized what they did as being necessary to the war on terror, simply invoking the name 9/11 for a rationale while failing to provide proof of the validity of the argument, after all if they cooperated then they wouldn’t continue to get paid for doing nothing, and providing real proof for magnifying exponentially a comparatively minor event is hard work. It is even not surprising (though paradoxically so) that our current president has only offered an “apology” if it could even be called that, for the actions Brennan denies, Cheney admits, and Congress has provided ample proof of, after all the Nazis did not willingly come to Nuremberg. What is surprising is this:
1) The American people don’t seem to really care about any of this and in the last election sided with its perpetrators because of their heavy use of 9/11 as a beacon for the moronic voters who seem to believe that this event is new (Following 1776 the British repeatedly invaded America, killing many more true patriots and innocent people on any given day than 9/11. Any of the battles of the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Texas War of Independence, Civil War, etc. killed more people, had more relevant context, and overall were far more important.), important, or even something we had never experienced before (Pearl Harbor-Kamikaze pilots we were not at war with attacked American soil and thrust us into a war that we managed with less technology, fewer troops, and less international aid to wrap up in less than half the time of our current “wars” and with the bonus of a boom afterwards. Or how about the Oklahoma City bombing, or even the previous attack on the Twin Towers?)
2) Congress seems decidedly partisan on this issue, which for some reason seems ok with the tiny portion of voters that turn out to any election (~28%). It turns out how you differentiate between torture and “Enhanced Interrogation” is whether you are a Democrat or Republican.
And finally:
3) Despite every nation but France, including the entirety of the United Nations, finding the report and response reprehensible, and despite every nation on the face of the earth just generally disliking America and its administration, we still think the system works on any level and will likely pass on the consequences to our kids. Apparently no one has thought of the one thing we need; it is the same thing we needed over 200 years ago under a different kind (but same substance) of despot: Revolution.
Feel free to engage in thoughtful discussion of this topic, only ignorant harassment will be moderated.
Background:
Republican Response to Senate Report
Politicians Responses to Report
US Casualties of Wars/Engagements
Psychologists Who Created US Torture Tactics
I don’t Belieber you
Usually I wouldn’t comment on something so trivial but Justin Bieber is a thorn in my side. It is ridiculous enough that his only discernable talent is his singing ability (helped, of course, by Autotune and a host of digital “enhancements”) and we hold him up on a pedestal because of that, but his recent skirmish with the law and the rather staged look of it tipped me over the edge. It is no secret that he is a puppet of his even less talented handler Usher, and this recent chain of events only seems to reinforce this. His mugshot sports him with hair that is only slightly miffed (look through your local newspaper and find anyone who has had time to do their hair prior to being arrested), a visible base coat of foundation (unless his face is just naturally a different shade than the rest of his body), mascara (yes, mascara because very few boys his age that I have seen have long, full eyelashes like a L’Oreal commercial), and a smirk that shows how confident he is of his limited engagement in the county jail, despite the fact that most DUI recipients are at least held in the drunk tank until they can sober up.
My theory, and it is by no means any more than that is this: Usher knew that “bad boys” are popular with the teenage crowd he panders to, but he also knew that Bieber couldn’t have the rap sheet of say Eminem and still be allowed by these teenagers’ parents in their home. He knew however, that a DUI while a serious offense is not viewed by most people as being as serious as drug possession or assault and is a more forgiveable crime in younger people so long as no one gets hurt. He concocted this plan to give Bieber some “street cred” as it were and gave Bieber enough alcohol to blow the required 0.08, then set him behind the wheel, assured him of his bailing, and tipped the police off that Bieber was driving drunk knowing they couldn’t resist such a prized catch. All of this done, of course, after ensuring that Bieber looked just “rough” enough to pass as intoxicated, but still decent enough not to look like a hard criminal.
This, of course, is both Usher and Bieber’s prerogative but what really infuriates me is that MADD (Mother’s Against Drunk Driving) can spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars making the police look like the NSA (the commercial where they are camouflaged as people who are obviously drunk walk by and then end with the slogan of “We’ll see you before you see us” is as creepy as the thought that our own government feels no need to operate within the confines of the law in surveillance) have made not even so much as a condemnation of this immensely popular figure’s mocking the very serious and dangerous crime of operating a machine that can and has killed many people, under the influence of a substance that removes inhibitions and impairs judgment even in small doses. No government agency or even the Governor of the state he was caught in (our “great” state of Florida which has a high DUI rate compared nationwide) has come forward to say this is not acceptable behavior nor behavior to smile in a mugshot for as though it were a photoshoot. No agency or person that has in the past condemned drunk driving in general has even mentioned how disgusting it is that this very public figure is, in effect, encouraging his fans to embrace him BECAUSE of a dangerous and deadly crime and is by association, encouraging the committing of said crime.
So in short, whatever you believe about Bieber and his “music”, you can not believe that his actions (due to his status) were even remotely responsible or that he should have received the light treatment he did by the judge hearing his case. At the risk of contempt, one might even question how much justice this judge meted out and how much of it went back in his pocket and toward his campaign to continue in his office (in Florida we elect whether or not to allow our judges to continue in their position and election time for that is fast approaching) for surely if he had considered the repercussions of such a light treatment as allowing a drunk teen idol to not remain in jail until trial but releasing him before the alcohol had time to leave his system, he would have held him to the fullest extent of the law.
This is simply my opinion however, what do you think? Did Usher and Bieber fake this for publicity? Is Bieber’s mugshot appropriate for someone who claims to care about his fans (could have hit one of them while driving drunk) and various other social causes? Have the authorities, leaders, judge, and MADD reacted appropriately? And finally, was justice served in this case? I look forward to your response.
Sovereignty
Wouldn’t it be nice to have the ability to decide whether or not you wanted legal action taken against you? Unbeknownst to most people, the States and their employees (Governor, Lt. Governor, Sec. of State, etc.) as well as most federal officers (President, Congress and Supreme Court, which to respond to my Google+ comment yes it is odd for such a liberal judge to issue a stay outide of her power, but she also receives a large contribution from the mormons and the Supreme Court is no stranger to seizing unlawful and unethical power. As well as the Cabinet of states and the President which can claim sovereignty) all have this ability as well as immunity from all “minor” offenses (misdemeanors, which include Notary fraud and bribes under $5000). Justices of our Supreme Court can even claim more power (the Supreme Court’s power is specifically enumerated in he Constitution but since Marbury v. Madison they have been adding on powers under the guise of “Judicial Review”) AND has the ability to hold in contempt anyone who disagrees with them. They have little interest in justice (see Snyder v. Phelps and listen to the arguments of the justices as well as the announcement of their opinion and you can see their bigotry and complete ignorance of jurisprudence) and often times vote either to appease the public (DOMA ruling came only after a Gallup poll that said 73% of approved of repealing it) or to put themselves in the limelight because they know people forget about them (Snyder v. Phelps was issued not in the interest of protecting free speech, it was issued because Westboro Baptist “Church” was constantly in the news for their atrocious and repugnant behavior as well as Ms. Phelps complete moronic arguments in the Arizona courts). Congress passes law that benefit their pocket books and the President has no courage to challenge any of it. Yet we, as Americans, allow them to continue their behavior and give them infinite “Get Out Of Jail Free” cards with not one qualm. We refuse to hold them accountable (STILL doing the Electoral College and not direct vote), and live in fear of criticizing them or even being civilly disobedient.
What do you think? Should Sovereignty still exist and if so why? Should the people hold everyone in office accountable to their oath to defend the Constitution and represent the will of the people or are things working out just fine as they are? What do you think?
A NOTE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH IS NOT PART OF ANY BAPTIST DENOMINATION AND HAS BEEN DENOUNCED BY ALL OF THEM FOR THEIR MESSAGE OF HATE AND IGNORANCE. THEIR ACTIONS (PRIMARILY PROTESTS AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES), IF EVALUATED BY THE IRS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THEM FROM A 501(c)3 (CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, ETC) to a 503(b) (SOCIAL CLUBS, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS). THEIR STATUS AS A CHURCH IS DUE TO MS. SNYDER (THEIR “ATTORNEY” WHO HAS NUMEROUS BAR COMPLAINTS FOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR).
James Bianco, Valeyard
Welcome Back! Part 1 of “The Ideal Government”
I apologize for the delay but I have been contemplating a solution to the problems inherent in our government. At the moment our government is inefficient, overpaid, not listening to their constituency, spying on their own people as well as their own allies, and has on numerous occasions threatened the very existence of our Union. In the Senate they have misused the power of unlimited debate to simply block the passage of laws that the people desire (Filibuster). In the House they have refused to use their power to remove elected and/or appointed officials who have transgressed the public trust (Impeachment). The laws passed rarely reflect the desire of the people and those elected are rarely qualified to do what a public SERVANT should do. Our elected officials are wealthy and indulgent while the average American is middle class and quickly losing all they own to the wealthy. Those in power have made sure that power is retained by the wealthy and prohibit those who represent the interests of the middle class from possibly winning an election (winning an election is directly related to the amount of money put into a campaign, rather than platform or qualifications). Watching Congressional Hearings and speeches is a cavalcade of idiocy. Congress refuses to do what we pay them handsomely for with most speeches given to an empty house and debates are nearly non-existent. Congress does not alone share in this damnable indictment. Our President ignores and acts directly opposite to the people, delegates authority to his bureaucracy who creates law (regulations carry the force of law) not based on true science, but on those they pay to create the conclusions they wish. The Department of Defense, the IRS, INS, CIA, FBI, US Marshalls, NSA, FDA, and most importantly the DEA all infringe on liberty unnecessarily, harass the populace continually, and refuse to listen to science, unless it involves groups like the MPAA (who rely on obscure and unwritten rules. Literally, they just watch a movie and make an arbitrary decision) or special interests who pay to have their “science” justify a particular regulation. The President has become a neutered dog and parrots whatever sound bite sounds good. Rather than lead our nation, he allows ignorant and bloated morons whose pay and benefits are NOT commensurate with their qualifications and who rely on inaccurate data to lead us to fear everything from Marijuana to trans fats (Its amazing how both have been around forever and never caused massive problems until Bloomberg (Sieg Heil Bloomberg!) banned them and now just looking at trans fats can cause a heart attack)(Also, just to clarify, neither trans fats that are in even soda pop and marijuana, which the AMA and numerous other truly scientific agencies have approved in its smoked form as a medicine and is SUBSTANTIALLY less dangerous than the legal drug Alcohol).
Finally, the Judiciary has overstepped its bounds in that they have claimed the right of judicial review without any good reason (read Marbury v Madison) and without approval of the people. They have created and vetoed laws which is not their right. They have ignored the Court of the People, prohibited representation to attorneys which only they can license even when representation by a non lawyer is desired. They have prohibited private criminal prosecution despite it working in every other civilised country and exists now only in despotic regimes. They make access to the court and records expensive and difficult to obtain for all but the wealthy. Judges are corrupt, preferring to stay with the old boys club where they listen and give deference to anyone with a JD, even when the other party has a valid case. Judges do not understand or know the law and attorneys bend the rules and are allowed to. Any question of a judge or attorney will place someone in contempt. Judges are bloated, ignorant, incapable, overpowered, overpaid, and refuse to apply the law equally, even to the point of discrimination.
This is a short indictment of our system and so through the next few weeks I will show you how to fix this. Perhaps with any luck we can call a Constitutional Convention and fix this system that is slowly but surely destroying this nation I love. Let me know what you think would be part of a better government!
The Valeyard 