Trivia Question #1: How many times does the word "Democracy" appear in the U.S. Constitution, AND the Declaration of Independence - combined?
Trivia Question #2: How many "rights" does the Bill of Rights give citizens?
Watch the video for the answers... at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_boAGNPmNQ
Reject the Bliss
Bliss: satisfied with what one is or has; not wanting more, content. Having a laisse faire attitude. Isolationism (aka the bubble effect) - the illusion that if it doesn't affect one in ones living room, it's not important. If ignorance is bliss, then most Americans must be downright ecstatic with what is happening in the world. The ugly, cruel world outside the comforts and confides of the typical American home, outside the realm of the “civilized” world. If they are aware at all. And many of the few that are often utter the most profoundly naive things. Like “America shouldn't even get involved over there,” and “it's none of our business.”
It used to tickle me when citizens spoke from uninformed mouths, ignorant of what they were so willing to share with others. But as the stakes of international affairs began to have the capacity to reach home, such ill-informed bantering took on a sadder tone.
Americans are decidedly much less educated today than prior generations. But lacking some of the basic knowledge of math and science skills pales in comparison to the real problem, namely the ignorance of history, and the lessons we thought we had collectively learned.
In fact we are so content, uneducated, blissful, that we even elected as president a man with virtually no experience, and plans of action that not only made no since they reeked and bellowed in admission to his naivety. Plans of course he has had to abandon once thrust into the real world and forced to actually lead. He won his role in a dog and pony show formerly known as politics because he had charisma, he had style. And we have become a nation of style over substance.
We have forgotten lessons learned with the blood of so many sacrificed love ones. Brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, moms, dads, cousins. Friends from down the street. Millions of them. Almost all of them losing their very lives fighting evil and oppression around the world, and even at home.
So when citizens say uninformed things that clearly demonstrate a complete lack of historical knowledge it infuriates, amuses, and saddens me – all at the same time. Things like the revolutions erupting or simmering around the world are none of our business. Or things like Israel is the terrorist entity, or statements that promote or acceptingly dismiss government intrusions into citizens' lives.
It's quite rare to be able to report recently hearing a wise statement from a politician. And I wish I could give him credit here but his name went unremembered. But his wise statement stuck, hard. When asked by a reporter if the federal government should do this or do that, he replied “Ask yourself this. Should the federal government even be involved with that.” I mean, after all, the constitution is quite clear on the limited “duties” and limitations of the federal government.
Government's primary duty is to protect its citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. There are no constitutional provisions for buying older cars, bailing out airlines, banks and insurance companies, or deciding if a business or industry is “too big to fail.” What companies, future companies, or since failed companies have been sacrificed and denied their rightful place in a new and better free market because Fanny & Freddie, AIG, GM, and other backward-clinging and thinking companies were given an unearned and probably temporary claim to that slot?
If government was worried about its citizens being abused by businesses why does it allow, through non-regulation, oil companies to stockpile oil and charge consumers record prices while creating record profits? Why aren't unions being fixed and turned back into what they originally were – advocate and champion of the little man against the machine of big business? - instead of bipartisan and bipolar alternatives ranging from dissolution to retaining the status quo.
But the domestic issues dim in contrast to the importance of international threats, none more obvious and critical that the threat from Islamic extremists.
Forget the obvious fact that it often takes force to stop a bully. Or the fact that the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men to do nothing (Burke). It takes great courage and leadership to do what is right even if it is unpopular in 51% or more of Americas living rooms. In a world where the truth can be easily and instantly spun into a web of lies, there are still great truths that we should have already learned – long ago.
What lessons presumably learned in the past have we forgotten? Isolationism and appeasement don't work – Hitler, communism, Hussein, Gaddafi. Laisse faire doesn't work in regulating big business – The Great Depression, abuses by oil and insurance companies. Religious oppression, forced assimilation, or favoritism is wrong – Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, Islamic colonization. And of course, power structures with limited membership become abusive, and fail. Eventually. Always.
It should not take years to muster support for democratic revolutions. It should not take weeks to establish no-fly zones so detached-from-reality dictators can't bomb their own citizens. Ask yourself this as you recoil in political correctness at the thought of sending troops to help average, everyday folk from being massacred by bully dictators and thugs: If not us, then who? If not now, then when? How many have to die? For how long? And how close to home does the mayhem have to come before it is “important” enough to warrant your support?
A wise man once said “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” What he was saying of course was know your enemy. Know who he is. Know what he believes, and why. Know your history, and his. Know this: Islam is not a tolerant or peaceful religion. And if you believe in self determination, democracy, womens' rights, civil rights and liberties, basic human rights, and religious freedom, Islam is your enemy. Even if you are not yet theirs.
If your politically correct subliminal training allowed to to complete this reading and make it to this end of prose, then congratulate yourself. You are at least trying to learn.
It used to tickle me when citizens spoke from uninformed mouths, ignorant of what they were so willing to share with others. But as the stakes of international affairs began to have the capacity to reach home, such ill-informed bantering took on a sadder tone.
Americans are decidedly much less educated today than prior generations. But lacking some of the basic knowledge of math and science skills pales in comparison to the real problem, namely the ignorance of history, and the lessons we thought we had collectively learned.
In fact we are so content, uneducated, blissful, that we even elected as president a man with virtually no experience, and plans of action that not only made no since they reeked and bellowed in admission to his naivety. Plans of course he has had to abandon once thrust into the real world and forced to actually lead. He won his role in a dog and pony show formerly known as politics because he had charisma, he had style. And we have become a nation of style over substance.
We have forgotten lessons learned with the blood of so many sacrificed love ones. Brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, moms, dads, cousins. Friends from down the street. Millions of them. Almost all of them losing their very lives fighting evil and oppression around the world, and even at home.
So when citizens say uninformed things that clearly demonstrate a complete lack of historical knowledge it infuriates, amuses, and saddens me – all at the same time. Things like the revolutions erupting or simmering around the world are none of our business. Or things like Israel is the terrorist entity, or statements that promote or acceptingly dismiss government intrusions into citizens' lives.
It's quite rare to be able to report recently hearing a wise statement from a politician. And I wish I could give him credit here but his name went unremembered. But his wise statement stuck, hard. When asked by a reporter if the federal government should do this or do that, he replied “Ask yourself this. Should the federal government even be involved with that.” I mean, after all, the constitution is quite clear on the limited “duties” and limitations of the federal government.
Government's primary duty is to protect its citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. There are no constitutional provisions for buying older cars, bailing out airlines, banks and insurance companies, or deciding if a business or industry is “too big to fail.” What companies, future companies, or since failed companies have been sacrificed and denied their rightful place in a new and better free market because Fanny & Freddie, AIG, GM, and other backward-clinging and thinking companies were given an unearned and probably temporary claim to that slot?
If government was worried about its citizens being abused by businesses why does it allow, through non-regulation, oil companies to stockpile oil and charge consumers record prices while creating record profits? Why aren't unions being fixed and turned back into what they originally were – advocate and champion of the little man against the machine of big business? - instead of bipartisan and bipolar alternatives ranging from dissolution to retaining the status quo.
But the domestic issues dim in contrast to the importance of international threats, none more obvious and critical that the threat from Islamic extremists.
Forget the obvious fact that it often takes force to stop a bully. Or the fact that the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men to do nothing (Burke). It takes great courage and leadership to do what is right even if it is unpopular in 51% or more of Americas living rooms. In a world where the truth can be easily and instantly spun into a web of lies, there are still great truths that we should have already learned – long ago.
What lessons presumably learned in the past have we forgotten? Isolationism and appeasement don't work – Hitler, communism, Hussein, Gaddafi. Laisse faire doesn't work in regulating big business – The Great Depression, abuses by oil and insurance companies. Religious oppression, forced assimilation, or favoritism is wrong – Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, Islamic colonization. And of course, power structures with limited membership become abusive, and fail. Eventually. Always.
It should not take years to muster support for democratic revolutions. It should not take weeks to establish no-fly zones so detached-from-reality dictators can't bomb their own citizens. Ask yourself this as you recoil in political correctness at the thought of sending troops to help average, everyday folk from being massacred by bully dictators and thugs: If not us, then who? If not now, then when? How many have to die? For how long? And how close to home does the mayhem have to come before it is “important” enough to warrant your support?
A wise man once said “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” What he was saying of course was know your enemy. Know who he is. Know what he believes, and why. Know your history, and his. Know this: Islam is not a tolerant or peaceful religion. And if you believe in self determination, democracy, womens' rights, civil rights and liberties, basic human rights, and religious freedom, Islam is your enemy. Even if you are not yet theirs.
If your politically correct subliminal training allowed to to complete this reading and make it to this end of prose, then congratulate yourself. You are at least trying to learn.
American Patriot
I am an American Patriot. Few would willingly argue against this statement, but what does it really mean? And how many hyphens do you need to narrow your definition to suit your own personal belief system? Are you African-American, Asian-American, a minority, an atheist, an immigrant - legal or not? Are you a socialist, fascist, communist? What type of government do you believe in? Democratic, representative, a monarchy, state controlled? Does a certain answer to one of those questions preclude you, or I, from actually being a real American? An American patriot? The answer is... yes.
Understand this. Our founding fathers prescribed certain pre-conditions and conditions for the founding and running of our nation and its government. We are supposed to be a "free" country governed by the people, for the people, and this precludes being governed by a king or queen, or any other totalitarian or dictatorial leadership, including the state-knows-best approach. So if you adhere to pure democracy, are a communist, fascist, or monarchist, in their purest forms, you are anti-American - in your beliefs. Ouch! Too harsh? That doesn't mean you can't live here nor does it mean you're not an American. It just means you're not a patriot.
But wait a minute. Did I say democracy is un-American? Absolutely. Democracy, in its purist form is nothing more than mob rule. To believe that one more than half of any groups' opinions or beliefs should be forced onto the entire group is, well, ridiculous. Democracy, like communism, is a grand concept that has repeatedly failed as a form of government. They are both great and failed experiments. Ask the ancient Romans, Greeks, twentieth century Russians, or laymen of current day China, or the starving masses of North Korea. The day to day or even generational whims of a simple majority are not always valid or sound for sustained legitimate government. Translation: might is not always right. Fifty-one percent of the people can be, and often are, simply put, wrong. A strong and free governed population must be a society of free persons represented by an elected government protective of an established set of civil liberties and laws where change is possible but through a legal process that is slow moving and thereby not overly influenced by pulses of the moment. These laws must be protected by the representative government through checks and balances, and protective of the citizens governed. If a simple majority were the only stipulation needed for change or the lack thereof, southern states in the USA might still have slavery, segregation, and worse.
Are you a "natural" American? I didn't ask if you were born of the descendants of the original or indigenous peoples that lived in this land before there was a United States. I'm asking if you were born in these united states or its territories, or to the parent(s) of a citizen. If so, then you are a "natural" American. A natural-ized American is one who was not but who has become a citizen through legal channels. If neither is true to you then you are an alien, legal or not. "Alien" is not a bad word. It is merely a distinction between natural, naturalized, and neither. You must be one of the first two to be an American. But you could in theory be living here, legally or not, and be a patriot in your beliefs and conduct. Confusing? Not really.
Can I be an atheist and a patriot? Of course you can. The constitution guarantees you the freedom to pursue the religion of your choice, including the lack thereof, and the lack of persecution from your choice, with its clause and condition of the separation of church and state, even though it never suggested the omission of God from state. In fact it labels us a nation of and under God.
African-American, Asian-American, Caucasian-American are all adjectives, nothing more. But a true patriot would probably distinguish his or herself an American first, with ethnicity secondary, as in American of African or Asian heritage. Semantics to be sure and I'm not suggesting you change how you classify yourself verbally so much as in how you think of yourself subconsciously. This country is in its infancy in terms of age and in comparison to other nations. As such we are not a true race of people, so much as we are a immigrant-fueled collusion of peoples brought together under a unique political and social belief system.
Are you a capitalist or socialist? The word capitalist has been misused to the point it is construed as a bad thing by many. But it too is not a bad word. It's just a distinction. It means you believe in free market, profit-driven, competitive business where hard work and sound practices lead to profits based on performance with no limits. Of course as success mounts the potential for abuses escalate. Socialism means that society as a whole is the beneficiary of what the state views as excesses by business through distortive and or redistributive wealth such as slanted taxation or tariff. Which is right? Both, of course. Capitalists should be free to maximize profits, and government should fairly tax and tariff the wealthiest for the protection and care of those in society who need help. Neither concept is wholly right or wrong until excesses are practiced. Government's sole role should be to monitor business to make sure it does not abuse the public good. It's a fine line between trying to maintain enough control over business practices to ensure fair competition and deter abuses to the public without controlling business practices as a whole. It's a constant balancing act. But in simplistic terms one must believe in capitalism to be a patriot. Without the drive to exceed beyond the norm, and the rewards that come with reaching that goal, one simply won't.
If all these points and counter points seem contradictory and complicated, it's because they often are. Fortunately for us the answers were figured out long ago and transcribed and recorded for posterity by a collective hoard of drunken geniuses (read more) in the master document of all documents. One that separated and still separates us from every government that ever came before or since. The U.S. Constitution. But as government swelled it began to neuter the constitution with amendments and laws that circumvented the original intents of the writings. Read more on this topic by reading the "Piss on the Constitution" blog..
But beware. Taking the red pill is a one way street. Can you handle the truth? Are you patriot enough?
Let's Get This (Political) Party Started
Many Americans recently have come to feel abandoned by their political party. They have become citizen refugees. Many lifelong Democrats have recoiled in horror from the gestapo policies and direction that party has taken. Others equally fear the complacency and loss of touch with the working class poor that has besieged the Republican party. The ranks of the politically disenfranchised are growing. The Libertarian and Tea parties attest to this. But these are still fringe movements, and to invest too heavily, and so early in these risks exclusion from the political process at a time when our country needs us the most. And most do not wish to recuse themselves from the political process. But the current two-party system is broken beyond repair. There has to be a better way.
Political parties have come and gone in the part. Many times in fact, especially in the early years of the republic. Indeed the two standing main parties today were once a single party that eventually divided over varying beliefs. Generically speaking the Republicans became the conservative party, the Dems the liberal party. But these labels are flawed to some extent as well. There are conservative Dems, and liberal Republicans. Those who just can't conform or meld into one or the other often label themselves as independents or moderates. But moderates don't truly exist. Very few citizens are moderate or neutral in their individual beliefs. Most have semi-extreme to extreme views on every individual topic or policy. Where do they 'fit' in the current labeling system?
Political parties have come and gone in the part. Many times in fact, especially in the early years of the republic. Indeed the two standing main parties today were once a single party that eventually divided over varying beliefs. Generically speaking the Republicans became the conservative party, the Dems the liberal party. But these labels are flawed to some extent as well. There are conservative Dems, and liberal Republicans. Those who just can't conform or meld into one or the other often label themselves as independents or moderates. But moderates don't truly exist. Very few citizens are moderate or neutral in their individual beliefs. Most have semi-extreme to extreme views on every individual topic or policy. Where do they 'fit' in the current labeling system?
Many Americans are trying to find an ideological home in the Libertarian or Tea parties. These two parties have some overlapping belief structures, ideals, and goals. Smaller, less intrusive government. Lower taxes and less government spending. Greater states rights. Stronger adherence to the constitution. Should they, will they merge to form a Constitutional Party? That would increase their clout. Is it in their makeup to even consider such a union? Or are they already, as the two main party's are, more concerned with their own agendas than righting what is wrong with this country? Will a viable third, or fourth, or fifth party help America unite or divide us further? Which would be better?
Look at some of the other multi-party free nations of the world. Many are marred in coalitions that weaken their platforms in order to hold majorities. But maybe it is these forced unions that keep them transparent and accountable to the citizenry. It is not the parties, the number of them, or their respective agendas that are the problem. It is the leaders of the parties. Power hungry life long politicians that are really only concerned with keeping themselves and their party in power – above all else. Only this is certain: there is no bi-partisan form of government any longer. So the creation of new and multiple parties may be the only thing that gets politicians back into that frame of mind. Eventually parties will distinguish themselves and major or minor parties depending on how they fare in elections free from intimidation.
It is time to expand the political process, if for no other reason than to have more choices at the polls. Picking the lesser of two evils in a gross way to select the leaders of the free world. Only when we have better choices in our leaders will we get better leaders. Yes, the two party system is broken. May it rest in pieces.
The Sarah Palin Mystique
Sarah Palin has two followings. One side of the political spectrum hates her. The other loves her. Very, very few Americans are indifferent or neutral towards her. It's been a long time since a politician has enjoyed such polarization. But why is this? The answer is simple. She is simple. Simple to read. Simplistic in her answers. Better phrased, Palin is straight forward. She's not a good lair. One can read in her body language and her fumbling for words when she is trying to be deceitful. Fortunately she tries to be deceptive very rarely. Only when trying to be all things to all people does she come across that way. Like when she tried to appeal to the republican base during the presidential election instead of holding steadfast to her conservative values and beliefs, even if they did not conform perfectly to the so-called moderates or independents the republicans were wooing.
A prime example is when she was asked by a reporter (unworthy of naming here) what she read? The question took her by surprise. As it should have. It was a question as significant as what is her favorite food, or color, or sports team. Who cares? In true two-party fashion she stammered out some politically correct uniform answer – like she had been instructed to by the republican syndicate. But she wasn't 'smooth' about it, and came across as disingenuous. She would have been better served if she had just been truthful. It's a good bet one could find magazines like Field and Stream, American Hunter, NRA, The American Conservative, and The Christian Science Monitor right along side with Vogue, People, Readers Digest, Cosmopolitan, and Vanity Fair. And what would have been wrong with that answer? Does one have to read the Washington Post or New York Times to be informed, experienced, or worthy of leadership?
Let's examine her experience level. For six years she led a large state to financial stability in a bi-partisan way. She made decisions and governed well, earning her the respect of her constituents, advocates, peers, and adversaries. The man we elected instead, had one year experience in voting instead of leading, and voted “present” more often than “yea” or “nay.”
Compare Palin to Hillary Clinton. Two different platforms and sets of beliefs. Yet there are more similarities than differences. Both are strong, opinionated women. Both have viable answers and solutions to the woes this nation faces, and believe in their respective approaches. The main difference between the two is one eventually chose to put her party and her future in it ahead of the good of the country, and one abandoned her party to pursue her ideology and beliefs, and better serve her country.
So why did Palin “quit” as governor? Again – a simple answer. Palin sought political freedom. Freedom to express her views outside of staunch party guidelines. And those conservative views have made her the “darling” of the Tea party. And a possible force to be reckoned with in the 2012 presidential election. Suppose she actually ran. Suppose she actually won. What would a Palin presidency mean?
If Sarah Palin were president, government spending would go down, not up. The budget would contract, not expand. Taxes would be lowered, and incentives to business growth would be the norm. She would govern like she did in Alaska. She would be 'readable' to the American people. She would put the good of the nation before the good of whatever party she belongs to. The people would still be polarized as to whether they loved her or hated her, but she would govern for the benefit of all citizens. In the end a Palin presidency would be as pleasing to the citizenry, as she is to the eyes.
The Miseducation of Faarooq
The Miseducation of Faarooq
....Supposing there are in fact a few that with clear conscience and no alternative agenda could actually oppose the removal of a brutal dictator and terrorist, let them counter this argument.....It is only from a place of sublime and serene comfort that one could so callously dismiss the suffering and oppression of so many, for so long, and favor instead their oppressor. We, as Americans, can and should cherish our seventh-graders peacefully protesting for the safety of their pen pals from Iraq. The ignorance and bliss of our secure, safe, well fed, and educated children is a source of pride, a shining example of our next generation - our future. But after we tuck them in for the night it is even more right, more just, that we lambaste those that organize and exploit them to further their own agendas and beliefs. Those lost souls have forgotten their role, their place, and their duty. Fortunately there are others both in this land and across the pond that have not. The protectors of the civilized world are doing the impossible as they put aside their individual aspirations, and challenge the evil forces in the world. When the bullies of the world rise up, it is a duty and an honor for good men to knock them back down, for "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke).
....This is not our crusade. This is not our fight. We didn't start it, didn't want it, and didn't ask for it. This fight was brought to us. It is not we who have for generations taught our children in schools and churches to hate all things 'them' at all costs, and to blame all things wrong on a separate, sparse, and oppressed people. And it is not our fault these seedlings are now coming of age and wasting their precious lives in senseless acts of pointless and doomed evil. Thanks to this gross and shameful system of teachings this fight has been thrust upon us, a gift of ignorance and hatred. There must be a new understanding if our children are to have a future. Truth must triumph over treachery. Long lost and once noble aspirations of a now abused belief system must be restored, or the cancerous mutation it has become must be removed from the shoulders of posterity.
....This noble and necessary task will not be easy. There are millions of the indoctrinated ignorant masses that need to be at least marginalized, at most reeducated. The future cannot function as it is now posed. One cannot interact with one-fifth of the world that greets one as friend at the front door, while simultaneously teaching hatred to children in the back room, and funneling money out the back door to murderers. Such duplicity can no longer be ignored for political or other reasons.
....The key to overcoming our enemies is not a complicated one. While others were being taught to hate and fear we in the civilized community were being taught things of a more practical value. Things like reason, tolerance, and diversity are a better mix for prosperity. But war is also taught, only from a different prospective. The goal is not to maim, murder, and inflict gross and inhumane treatment, but simply to win. To this end war becomes simple - for the educated. We will start by eliminating those who pose the most immediate threat, then probably progress to the one thing we want least - policing those who refuse to police themselves. They know who they are, and they are concerned. They should be. There is a reason we are referred to as a super power.
....There are things of this world that are inherently good, right, and just. There are just as many that are equally and inversely wrong, bad, and evil. It is bad to teach any child to hate. It is wrong to see and know of such things yet do and say nothing. And it is evil to spur our children to murder other children to press forth a cause or belief that we ourselves have not the courage or conviction to attempt ourselves. It is right and just to fight against those who come from such an evil seed. And to do so at one's own peril - political, personal, or otherwise - is even heroic. At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of brave souls thousands of miles from their homes willing to fight and die to protect the most basic of human rights and liberties. They come from a host of civilized nation-states from around the globe. All manner of peoples are represented by this coalition, all breeds and creeds, and all religions - except one. What does that glaring fact say to those who are willing to hear the truth?
....Recently there has been the presumption that the Iraqis are fighting so "ferociously" because they have some sense of nationalism in "protecting their homeland." Such sentiment is at best uneducated, at worst ignorant, and needs clarification. First, to suggest that 50,000+ KIA deaths coupled with 9,500 POWS tallied against fewer than 200 from the other side suggests ferocity is naive. Stupidity in tactics like driving buses into armored vehicles and attacking tanks with AK-47s may be brave, but that is hardly consideration for ferocity. And bravery cannot be adorned here, as hiding behind the skirts of women when waging a fight cannot be labeled brave. Secondly, the notion of nation-state is a poor translation in that part of the world. Nationalism is better understood there as part of a religious hegemony. There is a unified call for the "liberation" of Palestinians not because they don't govern themselves, but because they are governed by those of any other faith. There is no similar cry for the Kurds because they are governed (controlled) by the only faith deemed acceptable. This is the home of the only religious crusaders the world has known for several centuries. It is a colonization of religion origins and ambitions, not national or ethnic ones. And it is a policy as doomed to failure as the last crusades, not because of the belligerents themselves but because the cause is just as unjust. But then only the educated can hope to avoid the repetition of historical errors.
....And so the battle has begun. Us versus Them. We would choose to divide the two camps based on things we understand and hold true and valuable - honor, integrity, compassion, tolerance, diversity, understanding, equality, and the hope for a prosperous posterity - a better tomorrow. But that is how we the civilized have been taught to rationalize. But our adversary has been taught a very different message, a very old message, a message of exclusion, intolerance, and superiority. A superiority of religious beliefs instead of race. A message that has to change - or be changed
Obama, the latest Nero?
...Well the littlest emperor, appointed by the supreme court along partisan lines, has been deposed. Our Caesar was so unpopular that the powers that be are not yet powerful enough to kill off the constitutional mandate of a free election. Unfortunately, the dog and pony show that is American politics has placed the blue ribbon on the most untested, unknown, silver-spoon-in-mouth dung slinger (lawyer) in game-show American Idol - style over substance exhibition in the history of this once great land. The new emperor whom I shall label Morpheus, for his political stances (hard to call them stands since they varied from audience to audience and across time), was created by a media machine free from governmental control, but very much a pundit of the dollar king (advertising, ratings). He was then intravenously fed night after night, hour after hour, into the jelly-soft brain of the ignorant masses, particularly our youngest, most naive, and most ignorant citizens, dead and alive, with such vigor and blatant endorsement and support, until his appointment was secure. But that was yesterday. Today the free world has a new leader. But who is he?
...Is he the radical that he has been proved to be associated with, the completely inexperienced newbie that professes, no preaches change? Or the long-established model, polished politician who can shape shift himself to fit the moment and mood of a growingly shallow and unknowing populous? Will he be a world leader or a leader of one nation? Or the mouthpiece for one party? That at least would effect some change. After almost falling off the right side, a hard steering to the left for the next four years would do this country a lot of good.
Will this second emperor, the great chanting orator, gain enough power to finally set aside an open (relatively free) press, or that nagging document that we have butchered forty-something times thus far, and abolish the little man's say to the point elections are reduced to the media-supported endorsement circuses controlled by the rich and powerful elite (corporate sponsors) like the ones in other supposed and so-called democracies?
There are so many questions as to what next they can hardly be addressed here in anything short of novel form. So I jump straight to the near future, when the masses wake up to the reality they have been duped, fed cake when they needed meat and potatoes, and ask them as the ship America drifts further towards the edge of the world: Feel stupid yet? If not, wait for it; it's coming. But don't worry; it's not important. Only today forward matters. And I am fearful of tomorrow. Fearful of the effects of the impending depression and the growing strength of our enemies, sure. And more fearful of our own collective national inability to recognize or address these facts. But fearful most that the man that is supposed to lead us through these treacherous times is nothing more than a young, inexperienced, untested elitist lawyer whose only established modus is his inability at personal character judgment over long periods of time. Jeeze. Now that's scary.
Let's all pray (while it's still allowed) I'm wrong. I have been before. Let's hope this political pundit, this front man for his party, can grow into the role, and be what he has convinced so many he already is, and not be the man he has thus far proven he is. -was? Let's all hope our collective judgment of character is better, was better, than his has been for the past twenty years. I have never wanted to be wrong more in my life. For if this man deserts out allies, and cloaks America in an isolationist veil as our enemies abroad gain strength (more on this), our Rome shall too burn. Does Obama play the heart?
...Is he the radical that he has been proved to be associated with, the completely inexperienced newbie that professes, no preaches change? Or the long-established model, polished politician who can shape shift himself to fit the moment and mood of a growingly shallow and unknowing populous? Will he be a world leader or a leader of one nation? Or the mouthpiece for one party? That at least would effect some change. After almost falling off the right side, a hard steering to the left for the next four years would do this country a lot of good.
Will this second emperor, the great chanting orator, gain enough power to finally set aside an open (relatively free) press, or that nagging document that we have butchered forty-something times thus far, and abolish the little man's say to the point elections are reduced to the media-supported endorsement circuses controlled by the rich and powerful elite (corporate sponsors) like the ones in other supposed and so-called democracies?
There are so many questions as to what next they can hardly be addressed here in anything short of novel form. So I jump straight to the near future, when the masses wake up to the reality they have been duped, fed cake when they needed meat and potatoes, and ask them as the ship America drifts further towards the edge of the world: Feel stupid yet? If not, wait for it; it's coming. But don't worry; it's not important. Only today forward matters. And I am fearful of tomorrow. Fearful of the effects of the impending depression and the growing strength of our enemies, sure. And more fearful of our own collective national inability to recognize or address these facts. But fearful most that the man that is supposed to lead us through these treacherous times is nothing more than a young, inexperienced, untested elitist lawyer whose only established modus is his inability at personal character judgment over long periods of time. Jeeze. Now that's scary.
Let's all pray (while it's still allowed) I'm wrong. I have been before. Let's hope this political pundit, this front man for his party, can grow into the role, and be what he has convinced so many he already is, and not be the man he has thus far proven he is. -was? Let's all hope our collective judgment of character is better, was better, than his has been for the past twenty years. I have never wanted to be wrong more in my life. For if this man deserts out allies, and cloaks America in an isolationist veil as our enemies abroad gain strength (more on this), our Rome shall too burn. Does Obama play the heart?
boo-yah - The Arrogant America
a much better version of "you're either with us or against us"
What does boo-yah mean? It doesn't mean anything because it means everything. It's a composite of many different sayings rolled into one. But these sayings are thematic in nature.. Basic more generic meanings might include in your face, or hell yeah. But when a U.S. Military person says boo-yah it has even more meaning because the sentiment has a more profound implication like freedom isn't free so here's my payment, live free or die hard, or a strong man stands up for himself but a stronger man stands up for others. See, they understand the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men to do nothing. And for them, that is simply not an option. They are willing to risk it all to stand up to the bullies of the world and fight - especially for others. In fact they relish the opportunity to fight that fight. That does not make them or their civilian supporters war mongers; it makes them honorable men among men, liberators, the ultimate freedom fighters. So they fight. They fight for America. They fight because it's right.But is America right to fight so often? What an incredibly broad question, by intent. I pose it for simplicity because the answer is as simple as the question. Trying desperately not to sound too arrogant or vain I offer the answer: yes. Always? No. But with such regularity as to boggle the imagination. Oh, there are clearly defined reasons which I will exacerbate on below. But let's first review.
America was right to expand in its infancy, despite the hardships it brought to our own indigenous peoples. To be a powerful enough beacon of light and truth and justice in an dark and unjust world, America needed to be of sufficient size to have an impact beyond its own borders, to effect and affect those outside our bubble. America is free, has been a land of free peoples since it was old enough to crawl out of the slime which was the world at its inception. We fought our own brothers in a great civil war to bring that freedom to those we had ourselves earlier enslaved. We fought our own people in the civil rights movement to finally bring that freedom in more practical and applicable form to more of our people against even the overwhelming wishes of localized communities. We fought around the globe to bring that priceless freedom to our European, southeast and northeast Asian, Pacific Islander, and Mideast brothers of all nationalities, cultures, colors, and religions in not one but two great wars in the twentieth century. We fought with the Russians and Chinese as they fought against their oppressors, then against them as they sought to enslave their neighbors. We fought against the cruel Japanese empire of the mid twentieth century as they sought to enslave all of Asia. And we were right to do so.
We fought against peoples of our own skin color and religion in eastern Europe to bring freedom to Muslims. We fought against peoples of our own skin color to bring freedom to Muslims in the middle east despite their embracing of the fascist regime that threatened to devour them. And now we fight against them collectively in that region as they seek to devour those who dare attend a church different than their own. And again we are right to do so.
Why? We are one of the very few peoples on this planet who have been free since our birth, and we deeply understand the value of that freedom. Real freedom is not free; indeed, it carries a very high price. And we send the very best of our best, over and over again to the four corners of the earth in an effort to bring that freedom to all who dwell on this planet. Why? Because only through real and engulfing freedom can this world even be what it should be, ever achieve what the human race is capable of.
We fight. We fight for right. We have never, despite what our detractors say, fought to occupy or conquer, to root and pillage. We always fight to liberate. And that point is so overwhelmingly key, for it is this cause that places us firmly on hallowed ground, rooted firmly in the right. It is also why our allies and enemies change from generation to generation. It is not our philosophy that changes. Am I arrogant? Damn right I am. I have reason to be. I have reason to be proud of my heritage, our history, our efforts - in the past and in the future. If you seek to oppress, forcibly assimilate, conquer, obliterate, or enslave others, know this: you too shall eventually feel our might for we will not cease in our attempt to bring freedom to every nook and cranny of this planet. And in the end we will always succeed for right makes might, and not the inverse. Join us in the never ending fight for truth and justice and freedom, or grip tight your hatred and your guns - for you will need them.
boo-yah!
Piss on the Constitution
Most people have not read the collective works of the included and omitted parts of the Bible from cover to cover, or read all of Shakespeare's, Socrates', or Plato's works, and for similar reasons. They are so dated the language is hard to follow, and the symbolism so intense the storyline is often hard to understand. And it is such a shame for all are remarkable reading. But most persons have read or heard Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech, or Abraham Lincoln's inspiring Gettysburg Address - two of the greatest prose of individual modern men. But there is another document, collectively written, that was meant to change the world. The greatest story ever told. It is a tale of what the future should be...
Our founding fathers were truly remarkable men, by any standard. Drunkards and Creationists one and all, still they left individual religious beliefs and practices open for personal selection. They created an amazing document that spelled out privileges, rights, and even god-given guarantees of protection to some ideas and ideals that were generations ahead of their time. In this document the rights of the one versus, with, and relative to others' are spelled out in such detail and with such clarity as to distinguish this document from all others, past and present.
And yet we, the American people and government, have found the need to butcher it time and time again - forty something times. We have stripped away, piece by piece, the intent and meaning and protections so many fought and died to preserve for reasons we justified as modern improvements. Changes to reflect generational alterations in beliefs that often changes back and had to be amended then re-amended.
The constitution guarantees a freedom of religious beliefs and practices. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless such beliefs and practices differ from local or national standards."
The constitution guarantees the right of free assembly and protest. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless a peaceful protest interferes with a business' right to make money" or "but only if you have a permit issued by the local governmental body."
The constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless those in power do not like what is printed or said," as many now pose with a "truth in reporting" - meaning their truth.
The constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the document does it say "with the approval of the local government" or "with an approved permit" or "but only with arms the government approves of." On this point it goes to the extreme even allowing for the people to bring arms against the government itself should that government fail in its duty to protect and preserve the rights set forth in the constitution. And it does not specify "unless the acting government labels such actions as treason."
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from moneylenders, not allowing them to commit usury (charging more than 25% on a loan). Nowhere in the document does it allow moneylenders to circumvent this protection with compounded annual interest payments that triple or quadruple the total cost of a loan. Nor does it provide for lawmakers to pass special laws that allow moneylenders to charge up to 300% interest for loans to the neediest of borrowers as with the car title for money lenders.
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from unreasonable search and seizure. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless the man with the badge and gun says differently," or "unless the ones to be searched do not know and fully understand their constitutional rights."
And the constitution guarantees the right of citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And again nowhere in the document does it say "unless you want to marry or have sex with those your neighbor doesn't want you too," or "unless your peaceful non hurtful pursuit of happiness is in disagreement with your neighbors or local governmental accepted standards of normalcy or morality."
And yet all these slashes, these butchers' swipes have occurred, and will continue to occur. And they have changed this once magnificent document into a plastic covered museum piece of what this country could have been. Let's just make the final cut. Cut open this long forgotten document from its laminated constraints, lay it on the floor of congress and take a collective piss on it - once and for all.
Our founding fathers were truly remarkable men, by any standard. Drunkards and Creationists one and all, still they left individual religious beliefs and practices open for personal selection. They created an amazing document that spelled out privileges, rights, and even god-given guarantees of protection to some ideas and ideals that were generations ahead of their time. In this document the rights of the one versus, with, and relative to others' are spelled out in such detail and with such clarity as to distinguish this document from all others, past and present.
And yet we, the American people and government, have found the need to butcher it time and time again - forty something times. We have stripped away, piece by piece, the intent and meaning and protections so many fought and died to preserve for reasons we justified as modern improvements. Changes to reflect generational alterations in beliefs that often changes back and had to be amended then re-amended.
The constitution guarantees a freedom of religious beliefs and practices. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless such beliefs and practices differ from local or national standards."
The constitution guarantees the right of free assembly and protest. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless a peaceful protest interferes with a business' right to make money" or "but only if you have a permit issued by the local governmental body."
The constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless those in power do not like what is printed or said," as many now pose with a "truth in reporting" - meaning their truth.
The constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the document does it say "with the approval of the local government" or "with an approved permit" or "but only with arms the government approves of." On this point it goes to the extreme even allowing for the people to bring arms against the government itself should that government fail in its duty to protect and preserve the rights set forth in the constitution. And it does not specify "unless the acting government labels such actions as treason."
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from moneylenders, not allowing them to commit usury (charging more than 25% on a loan). Nowhere in the document does it allow moneylenders to circumvent this protection with compounded annual interest payments that triple or quadruple the total cost of a loan. Nor does it provide for lawmakers to pass special laws that allow moneylenders to charge up to 300% interest for loans to the neediest of borrowers as with the car title for money lenders.
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from unreasonable search and seizure. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless the man with the badge and gun says differently," or "unless the ones to be searched do not know and fully understand their constitutional rights."
And the constitution guarantees the right of citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And again nowhere in the document does it say "unless you want to marry or have sex with those your neighbor doesn't want you too," or "unless your peaceful non hurtful pursuit of happiness is in disagreement with your neighbors or local governmental accepted standards of normalcy or morality."
And yet all these slashes, these butchers' swipes have occurred, and will continue to occur. And they have changed this once magnificent document into a plastic covered museum piece of what this country could have been. Let's just make the final cut. Cut open this long forgotten document from its laminated constraints, lay it on the floor of congress and take a collective piss on it - once and for all.
F*ck You Too - A Patriot's Rampage
F*ck you too? Why use the "F" word at all? How about because I can. It's called freedom. If you object to my using the word, why are you here? Reading this? The word F*ck can be used in so many ways comedian George Carlin once did an act about all the possible uses of the word (read more here). Like it or not, it's above all an attention getter. And isn't that what a headline is supposed to do? I used it here to get your attention, and like I said, because I can. No secret morality police are going to come in the middle of the night and take me to jail and beat a confession out of me. America is not an Islamic country. Some may object and even complain, and to them I say God bless them, or F*ck 'em. You pick. I'm glad they are free to complain, even in writing to this web server if they feel that need. And if this web hoster decides to close my site, I say God bless them. Or F*ck 'em. You pick. I am always free to transfer my site elsewhere, just as they are free to decide what they will or won't allow within their domain. All that having been said, just why did I try to summon you here? What do I want to rave about? Just this: It's the loss of freedom we tolerate, the censorship we not only allow but often applaud or even employ.
The un-American stories I'm reading on a daily basis lately have me pulling out my hair. Black teachers taking black kids, and only black kids, specifically excluding others, on a field trip. Kids being sent home from school because they wore tee shirts or bandannas with the American flag on them during cinco de mayo week in California. WWII American veteran soldiers being told by housing communities not to fly the American flag. Hollywood being afraid to touch any topic that does anything Islam takes offense to, and cowering before threats, suppressing free speech by artists. Enough is e-F*cking-nuff!
I'm glad Hispanics are proud of their heritage and I support their celebration day, and their right to it. But that really doesn't matter. They don't need my permission or consent to do so. But if they think that a non-Hispanic wearing an American symbol instead is conflicting or derogatory then I say F*ck 'em! And if they want to support "gang" war against those persons, then I say they are not patriots, they are thugs. And if they want to use violence to suppress my freedom, or those students, then I say more than F*ck 'em. I say 'to arms!' You want to actually fight about whether I can or can not wear an American symbol? Fine. These colors don't run.
And that black teacher. I'm sure his heart was in the right place. Most teachers' hearts usually are. But I wonder what he would think or say if a white teacher took white kids, and only white kids, on a field trip to visit any one? As an educator he should have had the intelligence to see the potential backlash his endeavor would cause. Public schools are publicly supported by public funds and taxes and are therefore subject to strict adherence to laws regulating segregation, tolerance, inclusion over exclusion, diversity, and the list goes on and on. What was he thinking? Or was he thinking at all? What should be done with him? Nothing. Aside from perhaps a good talking-to by an administrator pointing out to him what I'm pointing out to you here. If, however, he wants to fight about it, to defend his actions, then I say F*ck him. Fire him. If after closer examination he can't understand what he did was inappropriate then he has no business teaching our youth. If he wants to actually fight about whether it's ok to practice racial exclusion I say F*ck him, let's fight about it. These colors don't run.
What about that WWII veteran. Let's just say thank goodness no one actually tried to forcibly remove his flag. I'm sure he could have handled that situation all by himself. God bless him. And kudos to the housing community for coming to their senses in that one instance. But if they try to do likewise in the future then I say F*ck 'em. And if they try to force their will on other free Americans I say 'to arms!' If they want to actually fight about whether someone can or can not fly the American flag I say... fine. These colors don't run.
I saved Hollywood and the mainstream media for last on purpose. I understand the Muslim way of thinking far better than most Americans. How? Because I can read, and I know my history. Why? Because I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer. Islam is the ultimate thug religion. Just as Catholicism was two thousand years ago, and Christianity was one thousand years ago. Maybe Islam will one day too take a chill pill and quit trying to forcibly assimilate or exterminate all who believe otherwise. But until they do they should be confronted on every front and at every opportunity. Southpark should be free to depict Islam's prophet as any offensive thing they choose, including a pig, or goat, or Nazi, or anything else they choose. Islam sure has no problem depicting Christians, nuns, Jews, or anyone who happens to go to another church, or worships another god, or no god at all, as evil, and in the most vile methods possible. But Southpark sarcastically and satirically depicted him as a teddy bear. Oh my gawd! The horror! Did the Islamic world call for a boycott of the show or the network? Did they pull sponsorships? No. They threatened the network, the shows creators, and Hollywood in general with violence. And how did the network and Hollywood in general respond? They banned the episode! Censured and banned the show! They countered the bully's threats with whimpering submission. I will not. If Islam wants to try to force their will on me or other free Americans I say 'to arms!' If they want to actually fight about whether someone can or can not show or depict their prophet in any light, positive, negative, realistically, or comically, I say... fine. These colors don't run.
I'm an American first. My ethnicity comes second. I don't want to fight for my freedoms or yours. But I have, and I will again. These colors won't run...
The un-American stories I'm reading on a daily basis lately have me pulling out my hair. Black teachers taking black kids, and only black kids, specifically excluding others, on a field trip. Kids being sent home from school because they wore tee shirts or bandannas with the American flag on them during cinco de mayo week in California. WWII American veteran soldiers being told by housing communities not to fly the American flag. Hollywood being afraid to touch any topic that does anything Islam takes offense to, and cowering before threats, suppressing free speech by artists. Enough is e-F*cking-nuff!
I'm glad Hispanics are proud of their heritage and I support their celebration day, and their right to it. But that really doesn't matter. They don't need my permission or consent to do so. But if they think that a non-Hispanic wearing an American symbol instead is conflicting or derogatory then I say F*ck 'em! And if they want to support "gang" war against those persons, then I say they are not patriots, they are thugs. And if they want to use violence to suppress my freedom, or those students, then I say more than F*ck 'em. I say 'to arms!' You want to actually fight about whether I can or can not wear an American symbol? Fine. These colors don't run.
And that black teacher. I'm sure his heart was in the right place. Most teachers' hearts usually are. But I wonder what he would think or say if a white teacher took white kids, and only white kids, on a field trip to visit any one? As an educator he should have had the intelligence to see the potential backlash his endeavor would cause. Public schools are publicly supported by public funds and taxes and are therefore subject to strict adherence to laws regulating segregation, tolerance, inclusion over exclusion, diversity, and the list goes on and on. What was he thinking? Or was he thinking at all? What should be done with him? Nothing. Aside from perhaps a good talking-to by an administrator pointing out to him what I'm pointing out to you here. If, however, he wants to fight about it, to defend his actions, then I say F*ck him. Fire him. If after closer examination he can't understand what he did was inappropriate then he has no business teaching our youth. If he wants to actually fight about whether it's ok to practice racial exclusion I say F*ck him, let's fight about it. These colors don't run.
What about that WWII veteran. Let's just say thank goodness no one actually tried to forcibly remove his flag. I'm sure he could have handled that situation all by himself. God bless him. And kudos to the housing community for coming to their senses in that one instance. But if they try to do likewise in the future then I say F*ck 'em. And if they try to force their will on other free Americans I say 'to arms!' If they want to actually fight about whether someone can or can not fly the American flag I say... fine. These colors don't run.
I saved Hollywood and the mainstream media for last on purpose. I understand the Muslim way of thinking far better than most Americans. How? Because I can read, and I know my history. Why? Because I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer. Islam is the ultimate thug religion. Just as Catholicism was two thousand years ago, and Christianity was one thousand years ago. Maybe Islam will one day too take a chill pill and quit trying to forcibly assimilate or exterminate all who believe otherwise. But until they do they should be confronted on every front and at every opportunity. Southpark should be free to depict Islam's prophet as any offensive thing they choose, including a pig, or goat, or Nazi, or anything else they choose. Islam sure has no problem depicting Christians, nuns, Jews, or anyone who happens to go to another church, or worships another god, or no god at all, as evil, and in the most vile methods possible. But Southpark sarcastically and satirically depicted him as a teddy bear. Oh my gawd! The horror! Did the Islamic world call for a boycott of the show or the network? Did they pull sponsorships? No. They threatened the network, the shows creators, and Hollywood in general with violence. And how did the network and Hollywood in general respond? They banned the episode! Censured and banned the show! They countered the bully's threats with whimpering submission. I will not. If Islam wants to try to force their will on me or other free Americans I say 'to arms!' If they want to actually fight about whether someone can or can not show or depict their prophet in any light, positive, negative, realistically, or comically, I say... fine. These colors don't run.
I'm an American first. My ethnicity comes second. I don't want to fight for my freedoms or yours. But I have, and I will again. These colors won't run...
Social Networking Sites
Social Networking Sites:
Are You the User or the Used?
.Are You the User or the Used?
Have you recently had your search page, your homepage, or any other Internet settings changed on your computer without your knowledge or consent? Does you Internet browser now have all those extra tool bars on it that you didn't "ask" for? Has you computer slowed down recently, or over time? Are you getting unwanted pop ups more than you used to? Or are you getting more and more warnings from your antispyware or antivirus programs? Is software mysteriously appearing on your computer, then remaining there after you thought you uninstalled or otherwise got rid of it? If you answered yes to any of these questions
"Your computer may be at risk! Click here to...."
Does that look familiar too? If so don't bite down on that hook! The best flat tire fixers in the world are the very ones throwing nails on the highway. And the best spyware, malware, and virus writers and spreaders on the Internet are the ones offering to help you. And these vultures have found a new haven. A megalopolis of the most naive and inexperienced computer users to latch on to and infest. They no longer need to prowl the web for individual targets. The public lines up for them at "social networking" sites - like Twitter, Facebook, and many more. Not just with their knowledge but with their consent and help.To understand why and how it works a reminder from eighth grade economics class might be in order. It's all about the money honey. The dollar king is in charge. How does Facebook, Twitter, and all the other social networking sites make their money? Didn't you ever even wonder about that? They are free, yes?
Oh sure, some of them have a few ads floating around on their sites and pages. But that only generates small amounts of money, unless a massive amount of computer users actually click on those ads. Do you have any idea of the enormous costs in hosting and serving millions of users worldwide? Plus, a lot of more experienced users completely block ads and pop ups. And the advertisers know this. So, I pose the question again: How do the social networking sites make the big bucks necessary to remain "free" services for millions of users?
To start with let's replace the term 'social networking sites' with 'Facebook'. But understand this is for simplicity's sake; they are by no means alone in this process. And we'll use the Bing search site as an example cohort - since they, in fact, are. All the sites started the same way. Totally free and free of ads. To build up their user database. Once they have sufficient numbers of members, they turn on the make money button. Here's how it works.
Bing builds an application disguised as a harmless game, widget, or "application" then pays Facebook to promote it through interaction between its users or members. When a user clicks the application or link they access a game, or survey, or IQ test, or "accept a drink" or "smile" or whatever the hook may be. The results then get texted or emailed to user accounts or phones which were given unsuspectingly by those very users. And aren't they just so fun! But here's what happened - in the background. On the dark side.
First, a massive database is created from all those phone numbers and email addresses. They are then sold, in bulk, to solicitors, spammers, insurance companies, online colleges, and virtually anyone else that wants said information. This is why you keep getting all that spam in your email, and all those phone calls from people and businesses you never reached out to. But that's not the extent of it.
The big money collaborators like Bing pay a fee to Facebook with both knowing that somewhere during the process a browser hook object (BHO), also known as a browser hijack object is installed on your computer. You may or may not be "asked" if you want that cool new tool bar with all those "useful" links, but they are often installed even if you select the "no thanks" option. Regardless, you now have a new home page, start page, search engine page, or whatever. Bing and Facebook then share the revenues created by the computer users using these new pages or sites. Both then readily offer you links to "clean your computer" because it is "at risk" and "running slower" than it used to. They get you coming and going. You are a rat in a maze and don't even know it. But ignorance is not bliss. These intrusions, add ons, and unsolicited software do impede your computer's speed and performance.
These hijacks and programs singularly and alone don't hurt your computer's performance too bad. Until they start to add up. A single game, drink, or application can infest you with up to 100 traces of unwanted malware. That might sound like a lot, but it's not really. But if you get sucker punched (sucker clicked might be a better term) enough, and on a regular basis, you can get thousands of traces reported by your PC's security software. And that high a level of infestation will slow down your PC. But don't worry, they will promote the cure. Just "click here"... and the cycle repeats itself. Some of the fee-based anti-spyware programs they promote will even tag their applications as safe. Then it's really hard to get rid of them.
So what do you do? Do you stop using Facebook or whatever social networking sites you use? No need. First of all such an act all by itself will not make you safe. Other sites use similar ploys. In fact I use Facebook, but only "to be seen" by old friends and others that might be trying to find me. I interact elsewhere - where it's safe. All you need to do is be smart. When you go to a mechanic and he tells you that you need $1800 of work and you can't understand what he's talking about, do you just throw your credit card up on the counter and ask when your car will be ready? If a doctor tells you need a $10,000 operation to cure an ill you didn't even know you had or you'll die in a week, do you jump up on the table and say cut me? Of course not. You do research. You investigate. You become more educated and informed. And that's what you need to do with your social networking site. You've already started. You're here.
Don't take my word for any of this. Google (don't Bing) terms like BHO, browser hooks, browser hijacking, and use the 'advanced search' button to search for phrases like "how do free sites make money" and so forth and so on. And once you've swallowed the red pill and see how sites make their money, simply sidestep the tar pits that you can suddenly see. Use social networking sites to connect with old and lost friends, and interact with them daily without getting eaten alive by Internet parasites. Don't click that button to "share a (virtual) drink" and play their game. Send your friend an invitation to meet and share a real drink. And show your IQ by NOT clicking that link for an IQ test that requires your phone number, email address, or downloading an executable (.exe) file. And for goodness sakes run some good antispyware and antivirus software once or twice a week to keep your PC clean, safe, and fast. I could recommend and even supply links to the ones I use, namely Comodo Internet Security, SUPERAntiSpyware, and Spyware Blaster. But you should research and review them for yourself to see if they are right for you. All three have highly effective FREE versions. They are all I use, and I am a heavy Internet user. Did I mention I have not had a virus or case of serious spyware or malware in more than three years? And my two year old computer never ever crashes and is as fast today as the day I bought it. Can you say that?
Use you social networking site to your benefit. Don't get used for theirs.
Illegal Immigrants Rights
Do illegal immigrants have rights in the United States? Of course they do. The have the same basic human rights that all persons and peoples do in this country. They have the right to freedom of speech, expression, religion. They have the right to not be detained or incarcerated without due process, and to be treated humanely even if they are. But do they have civil rights? Do they have the same civil rights and liberties, and constitutional rights as the citizens of this country. The simple answer is no.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Civil Rights Act, along with other laws apply to U.S. Citizens and legal guests of this country. They do not apply to criminals. Ask any incarcerated person if they enjoy the full rights of free citizens. And illegal immigrants are criminals. They came into this country illegally, or stayed past their legally allowed time. They may not be hardened or violent criminals, but neither are jaywalkers, those who don't pay their income taxes, or those who drive over the speed limit or without insurance. And even citizens that break these laws, particularly repeat offenders, will eventually face incarceration. If one lives in Texas and violates a law in Arkansas, law enforcement officers do not escort them back across the state line. They charge them with a crime and the offender must go through the legal process. So why are violators of our borders and homeland security treated differently, even preferentially?
There are supposedly some eleven million illegal immigrants in this country. The vast majority are from Mexico. But do they do harm? That's not really the point, but let's examine it anyway. Do income tax evaders or cheaters, highway speeders, or uninsured motorists do harm? There is no clear proof they are more likely to be involved in an auto accident. But there is proof they are a factor in law abiding citizens having to pay higher premiums and taxes. To pose the argument that there are too many illegal immigrants to correct the problem, or prosecute, is preposterous. Sounds like the “too big to fail” argument big brother used to circumvent the economic law of survival and bail out poorly run businesses, depriving better run businesses of their right to supplant them in the supposedly free market. To 'bail out' all illegal immigrants with carpet immunity is not due process and penalizes those who have come to make this country their home – legally. Plus, illegal immigration does do harm to the economy, and at the expense of citizens. Illegals occupy jobs and drive down competitive wages. Consider this: Those that argue against the preceding three paragraphs do so from other perspectives and angles, and with personal, professional, or political agendas, but can not successfully refute the facts above. But pointing out a problem without offering a solution is pointless rhetoric, debate fodder. So what can be done?
Neither current major political party has an answer. Not one they want to publicly share anyway. It's not in their respective self-serving interests to alienate the second largest ethnic block of voters. So getting a straight forward, viable answer from any established politician is...wait, does this sentence actually need completing? And don't expect a posed solution from big business who use this illegal labor to maximize profits by exploiting the illegal workers through lower wages. But a simple citizen, with no agenda but the basic adherence to law, can come up with one – with relative ease.
Simply allow every illegal immigrant to report to the INS within the next three months for processing. Allow each person to remain in the country for twelve months and go through the legal channels of applying for and obtaining citizenship. Allow extensions for those successfully engaged in or progressing through the process so no one ends up being incarcerated or deported simply because the system gets bogged down. Those who do not comply should be arrested, not deported, and serve time in jails performing menial civil or infrastructure work at the same wages we currently pay other incarcerated persons until they have prepaid for their deportation expenses. Those who complete the legal process to citizenship should then be taxed at a slightly higher rate until any owed income taxes are paid. Those who continue to come across the border illegally should similarly be arrested and serve time for the purposes of allowing them to earn the money to pay for their deportation. Repeat offenders draw larger and larger fines and sentences, much as repeat DUI and other offenders do.
And what about the children? If they were born here they are citizens. In the event their parents or guardians are eventually deported their eventual status should be determined on a case by case basis by the appropriate service responsible for children's welfare in that state, such as the Department of Children's Services or the Department of Human Services for examples. Those old enough and/or those that have sponsors (family, friends, foster care) and a place to live may wish to stay. Others may wish to go with their parents. If they are too young the parents wishes may trump. The above mentioned services have models in place to determine who should have custody, much like in divorce proceedings. And think of all the jobs and income that would be created with this solution. More case workers for the DHS or DCS. More immigration officers. More penal officers. More educators. More IRS jobs. More money in the government coffers generated from those that caused the problem, instead of the average law abiding citizen footing the bill.
None of these solutions are perfect, but they are viable and workable. And remember this. This problem was not created by citizens of this country. We are just looking for an answer, and this one will do.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Civil Rights Act, along with other laws apply to U.S. Citizens and legal guests of this country. They do not apply to criminals. Ask any incarcerated person if they enjoy the full rights of free citizens. And illegal immigrants are criminals. They came into this country illegally, or stayed past their legally allowed time. They may not be hardened or violent criminals, but neither are jaywalkers, those who don't pay their income taxes, or those who drive over the speed limit or without insurance. And even citizens that break these laws, particularly repeat offenders, will eventually face incarceration. If one lives in Texas and violates a law in Arkansas, law enforcement officers do not escort them back across the state line. They charge them with a crime and the offender must go through the legal process. So why are violators of our borders and homeland security treated differently, even preferentially?
There are supposedly some eleven million illegal immigrants in this country. The vast majority are from Mexico. But do they do harm? That's not really the point, but let's examine it anyway. Do income tax evaders or cheaters, highway speeders, or uninsured motorists do harm? There is no clear proof they are more likely to be involved in an auto accident. But there is proof they are a factor in law abiding citizens having to pay higher premiums and taxes. To pose the argument that there are too many illegal immigrants to correct the problem, or prosecute, is preposterous. Sounds like the “too big to fail” argument big brother used to circumvent the economic law of survival and bail out poorly run businesses, depriving better run businesses of their right to supplant them in the supposedly free market. To 'bail out' all illegal immigrants with carpet immunity is not due process and penalizes those who have come to make this country their home – legally. Plus, illegal immigration does do harm to the economy, and at the expense of citizens. Illegals occupy jobs and drive down competitive wages. Consider this: Those that argue against the preceding three paragraphs do so from other perspectives and angles, and with personal, professional, or political agendas, but can not successfully refute the facts above. But pointing out a problem without offering a solution is pointless rhetoric, debate fodder. So what can be done?
Neither current major political party has an answer. Not one they want to publicly share anyway. It's not in their respective self-serving interests to alienate the second largest ethnic block of voters. So getting a straight forward, viable answer from any established politician is...wait, does this sentence actually need completing? And don't expect a posed solution from big business who use this illegal labor to maximize profits by exploiting the illegal workers through lower wages. But a simple citizen, with no agenda but the basic adherence to law, can come up with one – with relative ease.
Simply allow every illegal immigrant to report to the INS within the next three months for processing. Allow each person to remain in the country for twelve months and go through the legal channels of applying for and obtaining citizenship. Allow extensions for those successfully engaged in or progressing through the process so no one ends up being incarcerated or deported simply because the system gets bogged down. Those who do not comply should be arrested, not deported, and serve time in jails performing menial civil or infrastructure work at the same wages we currently pay other incarcerated persons until they have prepaid for their deportation expenses. Those who complete the legal process to citizenship should then be taxed at a slightly higher rate until any owed income taxes are paid. Those who continue to come across the border illegally should similarly be arrested and serve time for the purposes of allowing them to earn the money to pay for their deportation. Repeat offenders draw larger and larger fines and sentences, much as repeat DUI and other offenders do.
And what about the children? If they were born here they are citizens. In the event their parents or guardians are eventually deported their eventual status should be determined on a case by case basis by the appropriate service responsible for children's welfare in that state, such as the Department of Children's Services or the Department of Human Services for examples. Those old enough and/or those that have sponsors (family, friends, foster care) and a place to live may wish to stay. Others may wish to go with their parents. If they are too young the parents wishes may trump. The above mentioned services have models in place to determine who should have custody, much like in divorce proceedings. And think of all the jobs and income that would be created with this solution. More case workers for the DHS or DCS. More immigration officers. More penal officers. More educators. More IRS jobs. More money in the government coffers generated from those that caused the problem, instead of the average law abiding citizen footing the bill.
None of these solutions are perfect, but they are viable and workable. And remember this. This problem was not created by citizens of this country. We are just looking for an answer, and this one will do.
The Electoral Albatross
Our founding fathers were truly remarkable men, by any standard. They created an amazing document that spelled out privileges, rights, and even god-given guarantees of protection to some ideas and ideals that were generations ahead of their time. In this document the rights of the one versus, with, and relative to others are spelled out in such detail and with such clarity as to distinguish this document from all others, past and present. A few of those ideals became dated over time and required updating or amending. One in particular has become an albatross that is adversely affecting citizen representation in government. The electoral college has outlived it usefulness.
Just like the early labor unions, both served a valuable and much needed purpose. But both now often work against the greater good. The creators of this nation were concerned that larger more populous states might hold too much sway in presidential elections in relation to smaller states. No doubt they were also concerned that as the population grew over time the practicality of the one-man one-vote principle would be harder to maintain. So the electoral college was conceived whereby voters in a state were represented by persons from and accountable to the citizens of that state. But it is two and a half centuries later and things have changed to the point that this system is now guilty of the inequities it was designed to curtail.
It can little be doubted the intent of the design was not to allow a 51% majority in one state to outweigh a 60-70% majority across half a dozen states or more. But that is what is currently happening. If Candidate A wins California by a slim margin an receives its 55 electoral votes, Candidate B would have to win virtually every other state west of the Mississippi River (save Texas) to counter that tally. This is not protective of those smaller less populous states, it marginalizes them. It also sets the table for a candidate to win the oval office with less than half of the overall popular vote. There are other problems as well.
Looking back at the presidential election of 2008, a clear pattern of both candidates bypassing states deemed as “already decided” and focusing on so-called swing states where the outcome was still in some doubt, led to preferential campaigning, state and voter marginalization, disenfranchisement, and apathy. Candidates rarely actively campaigned directly against one another in person in states that had fewer than twenty electoral votes. Instead they campaigned across each other in the mainstream media which was overtly biased for various reasons. This media campaigning also allows the dollar king to wield undue influence. If the presidency is for sell, why not just have the political parties or candidates simply bid for the oval office on e-bay?
One man, one vote. Or in more gender sensitive politically correct terminology, one person, one vote. It’s a very catchy phrase, one that appeals to every true American. The problem in implementation however became extremely difficult as the population grew. Just as our forefathers envisioned. In a system where more than half of all eligible voters are disenfranchised to the point of self exclusion, every vote has never been counted. And hand counting or inspecting millions of votes cast in a wide-ranging assortment of methods and within a few hours so the news agencies can bring the winner’s acceptance speech into living rooms on prime time television was impossible in times past. But modern technology has us on the brink of that goal. With the notable exception of Florida. Now, more than ever before, the one person one vote concept is obtainable. And the subjectivity and accuracy could be improved with practice. Its time to stop ignoring millions of voters. It's time to count every vote once more.
Just like the early labor unions, both served a valuable and much needed purpose. But both now often work against the greater good. The creators of this nation were concerned that larger more populous states might hold too much sway in presidential elections in relation to smaller states. No doubt they were also concerned that as the population grew over time the practicality of the one-man one-vote principle would be harder to maintain. So the electoral college was conceived whereby voters in a state were represented by persons from and accountable to the citizens of that state. But it is two and a half centuries later and things have changed to the point that this system is now guilty of the inequities it was designed to curtail.
It can little be doubted the intent of the design was not to allow a 51% majority in one state to outweigh a 60-70% majority across half a dozen states or more. But that is what is currently happening. If Candidate A wins California by a slim margin an receives its 55 electoral votes, Candidate B would have to win virtually every other state west of the Mississippi River (save Texas) to counter that tally. This is not protective of those smaller less populous states, it marginalizes them. It also sets the table for a candidate to win the oval office with less than half of the overall popular vote. There are other problems as well.
Looking back at the presidential election of 2008, a clear pattern of both candidates bypassing states deemed as “already decided” and focusing on so-called swing states where the outcome was still in some doubt, led to preferential campaigning, state and voter marginalization, disenfranchisement, and apathy. Candidates rarely actively campaigned directly against one another in person in states that had fewer than twenty electoral votes. Instead they campaigned across each other in the mainstream media which was overtly biased for various reasons. This media campaigning also allows the dollar king to wield undue influence. If the presidency is for sell, why not just have the political parties or candidates simply bid for the oval office on e-bay?
One man, one vote. Or in more gender sensitive politically correct terminology, one person, one vote. It’s a very catchy phrase, one that appeals to every true American. The problem in implementation however became extremely difficult as the population grew. Just as our forefathers envisioned. In a system where more than half of all eligible voters are disenfranchised to the point of self exclusion, every vote has never been counted. And hand counting or inspecting millions of votes cast in a wide-ranging assortment of methods and within a few hours so the news agencies can bring the winner’s acceptance speech into living rooms on prime time television was impossible in times past. But modern technology has us on the brink of that goal. With the notable exception of Florida. Now, more than ever before, the one person one vote concept is obtainable. And the subjectivity and accuracy could be improved with practice. Its time to stop ignoring millions of voters. It's time to count every vote once more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)