Slavery in the Penal System: Part 2

Photo taken from here

Once you have recognized a negative force you have a couple of choices:
1) Cry about it to your tear-stained diary
2) Engage in self-deception
3) Leave the country
4) Undertake to understand the problem and so to be able to take action

The last option means examining the benefits, and the the course of action taken to get those benefits to reach phronesis, or a higher understanding. Each number under ‘benefits’ corresponds to the same number under ‘how’ which contains it’s explanation

Benefits of such a trend:
1) To more efficiently enforce desired results/greater control
2) Profit
3) Self-congratulation
How is this accomplished:
1) I have read that when a stand-up comedian goes before an audience every night and they never fail to laugh in the correct places and applaud at the right times, he loses respect for the audience. Where is the individuality? What kind of thought process is going on in their heads? So it is, I believe, with politics. Thomas Sowell calls it the Democratic Fallacy, the idea that if the people want it, they deserve it. The politicians see the harm that this causes–they do still get morning briefings, I believe–and yet they comply with their wishes to win their favor. To do this, however, involves holding a gun to the rest of the nation’s head.

The person that most benefits is a politician and this is done through lies in the media, lies in the educational centers, and especially, false intellectual movements. All this gives a people a feeling of relief, of all things, when they see news reports. “I’m glad that’s not me,” they think. But at the same time, they are paranoid and scared into compliance. Eventually, through this compliance, they develop a sense that they are right in doing so, and that the government is right in its portrayal as the average person as a criminal, one needing to be carefully watched over. On the whole, it’s insulting. But, as I said in the last post, these politicians have nothing in common with the average person. What is to be expected? A deep compassion and guardianship? That’s why the American Constitution was written to safeguard the people from politicians.

2) Now that it’s generally understood that these ‘criminals’ (I refer to those accused to victimless crimes) are guilty and harmful to society for, say, evading exorbitant taxes, and the people are largely not willing to believe that their government is as bad as it is. Also, thanks to their new apolitical attitude in this culture of materialism and having no cause to fight for (a scary delusion perpetrated by pundits and believed by many), the prisons get away with contracting their prisoners entirely against their will to private companies. By crushing the opposition, it’s easier to get reelected and to appease your every whim as a politician. It’s not at all for the benefit of society, which is obvious when you consider the outrageous cost of housing, feeding, providing cable TV to, etc., these prisoners. To even consider that selling their labor to offset the cost is a good idea is ludicrous. It’s enslaving those who have done nothing to deserve this.

3) People are not entirely rational beings, and emotions need to be taken into account. The kind of person that politics attracts is generally self-aggrandizing, wanting to reinforce his/her own beliefs about the world, and narcissistic. The more wrong a person has done, the more pain they have caused and have made hard decisions, the higher the barrier to acceptance of these facts is. Few people, in general, not only in the aristocracy, are willing to take such a hard look at themselves and then try to be good people. Why, when the incentives to do quite the opposite are so compelling?

Conclusions: I’m not narcissistic enough to claim that I have this ‘higher understanding,’ but the answer seems to be that the founding fathers of the U.S.A. had it right–there should be a legal framework in place to avoid the tyranny of both the masses and the government. However, as Victor Hugo questioned in Les Miserables, what good does a revolution do? It should never be taken as a given that the power that comes into play after a revolution will be any better. They threw out the Bourbons and got Napoleon, and those who carried out the revolution were overwhelmingly not the ones who benefited from it.

Slavery in the Penal System: Part 1

Photo Credit: taken from here

It is my belief that the large majority of ‘criminals’ in jail should not be there at all. The police force used to be about detaining and punishing rapists, arsonists, murderers, etc. But now there’s this attitude of “how dare you” do a number of things that are actually constitution-given rights, such as controlling your own money, bearing arms, and, most importantly, resisting. Resisting for the greater good, for your own liberties, and doing the very things that the country is founded on.

Many prisons also sell the prisoner’s labor and then make a profit on this. How is this rehabilitative? It’s not, and denies the principle of the penal system–that man is capable of renewing himself by engaging in self-reflection. NOT doing menial labor to turn a profit. It’s sickening. Yet the number grows and grows. It’s also revolting to watch the lobbyists in Washington push for more and more regulation. What kind of life-ruining results will come from this, from banning and ruthlessly punishing victimless crimes, from destroying families of music-downloaders. The human race is not allowed to be pushed forward, but rather stagnated in a campaign against the American, European, Asian, etc., people.

What makes a person believe that, for example, Hilary Clinton, has anything in common with the average person. She’s immensely rich, has a godhead complex, is repeatedly on the ‘most powerful people’ lists, and can call up the president of China on a moment’s notice. She has been in the White House for 8 years, in politics for many more, and now is Secretary of State. Compare this to your average bureaucrat. There’s almost no common ground in their lives, and so their political and humanitarian beliefs also will never mesh. They live in different worlds, one aristocratic, one solidly lower class in comparison.

In Part 2 I will examine what conclusions we can arrive at.

Heidi Montag is Aware and Revolutionary

Heidi Respects Her Body and Herself

Heidi might as well be the next charismatic leader this country needs, a Susan B. Anthony, a Benjamin Franklin (I shiver with excitement when I think about reading her autobiography), or a Martha Stewart. Indeed, because of her background as an executive in Hollywood, she is more than qualified to engage in punditry with Alex Jones.

She has been more than willing to admit her own hypocrisy in worshiping her body as a temple. She did not have, after all, any compunction about taking breast implants and a bellybutton ring.

This entire scenario takes me back to when she was really dead, right after her high school graduation she fell into a deep depression, knowing that she would never accomplish great things, and yet repeatedly woke up and went out into the world to star in her own television show, despite her lack of an interesting life. Until the pony accident, that is, after which she realized she could sniff out microchips in humans.

Heidi who raised her glass in a toast to her new found ability and looked at her husband. He lay reading the 48 Laws of Power, and copying the samurai lifestyle, no doubt, making sure no evil pale face with bad intentions follows him to the beach or to his moose hunting adventures. He considered his anti-tracking techniques to be his own special ability and frowned at the sight of the paparazzi; they had managed to circumvent his precautions without even knowing it and this made him feel inferior.

“Do you think I’m special?” he asked her.

“Well, yes, I suppose you are unique.”

“And if aliens were to visit earth and propagate the planet with mutant moose who enslave me? Even then?”

“Yes”

“OK,” he said, and he continued reading his book, forgetting all about his fleeting concern.

Klingon Offshore Banks–New Asset Protection Strategy

Photo credit: www.henryjenkins.org

Ladies and Gentlemen of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), we are gathered here today to decide what to do about the G20 banking countries. Ever since our newest President, and former captain of the Kenya Enterprise, decided to sell our light saber technology to the Jedi Knights our economy has been in straits. China even seeks to stop buying our products, especially since light sabers became open source on that fateful day that it was realized that Klingons could produce the beams with their eyes, as well as bypass retinal scans, eliminating much of the banks’ security. 

We can all see that this was a grave error, borne from the need to levy taxes to support the destruction and patrolling of the various enemy planets. What should we do now? Who will provide leadership to us after Obama renounced his position as captain? And most importantly where should our remaining light sabers be placed?

I propose a daring proposition. Perhaps they should be placed in the hands of our Klingon lawyers. Perhaps we should look to underpopulated jurisdictions to loosen the proverbial umbilical cord. And perhaps we should protect and defend our right to place a saber in the hands of our children and sleep easy knowing they are safe and prosperous. 

My own bank, not to self-promote, has long been offering Empire Credits, where all credits issued are backed by at least four moons and six slaves from another planet, and guaranteed by the Empire. Our alma mater even says it, “…and amber waves of rays, and purple mountains majesty, backed by capital gains…” 

There is also a strange species of credit, Interplanetary Credit Cards, in which you can make your gasoline payments for your spacecraft. Please note that no bending of the spacetime continuum is allowed when making purchases–it’s programed to immediately deactivate itself if you approach the speed of light. Also, inserting a light saber into an ATM or a bank teller girl, if the blessed technology is still current, is punishable by five years on a dreadfully dry planet. It would be futile, anyway, since they are made of the diamonds of planet Klingon, the hardest material in the galaxy, as are the abdomens of my brethren. 

And, of course, all transactions can be anonymous, even for you creatures who cannot become invisible, unless you are breaking a law on the Klingon planet. We are unemotional beings, however, and do not have very strict laws for we covet little and hold very few grudges. 

I hope that then freedom shall reign upon this great planet just as the flowers turn purple when the 4th moon shines upon it. 

Think about it. Sleep on it. Levitate on it. Whatever you need to do. Good day.

The Iraq War Was a Pretty Good Idea

     “LBJ would…tell his close aide Jack Valenti that reading the casualty reports from Vietnam was “like drinking carbolic acid every morning…Here’s how our current president felt about the “agony” of war around 10:00 p.m. on the evening of March 19, 2003, minutes before he would address the nation to inform it the Iraq war had begun. As aides were applying makeup before his televised speech, he pumped his fist and told an aide: “Feel good.”
     In other words, Bush, “on top of the world,” felt just wonderful about launching a high-tech war of destruction and death which his people obscenely titled “shock and awe.”
-Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

     The movement to send our favorite War Dog, George W. Bush, to trial, and quite possibly a very secure prison, for the numerous war crimes he committed is not exactly a grassroots movement when Barack Obama releases memos detailing the illegal cases of torture during Bush’s presidency. However, it’s not as revolutionary as it sounds since Obama is hesitant to try the criminals in court for their crimes because, according to him, it is a “time for reflection, not retribution”. Unfortunately for Obama, the right to decide who should go to trial is not one of the responsibilities given to the executive branch of government. You can’t have a Nation of Laws, especially a Constitutional one, and not try criminals while pretending that there’s a shred of justice left. You can put a ribbon on a turd but it’s still a turd. 

     In fact, this means Obama is sanctioning and failing to punish at least 14 known cases of torture, all war crimes that were committed with the full knowledge of the Bush administration. What an outrageous lifting of personal responsibility in a time where this is badly needed, similar to the kind of privileges extended to the Nazis who were just “following orders,” consequences be damned.  

     Bush has shown himself to be quite cognizant of his guilt, perhaps forsaw some of these movements against him, and tried to change the law to conform to his corrupt, condoned practices as a defense. The 2006 Military Commissions Act “gave retroactive immunity for war crimes to civilians in the administration, but not to the military grunts who enforced the policy, and which carved out a continuing exception for torture to CIA agents.” This is a cowardly way of scapegoating the little guy for the leader of a nation. However, now, they can participate in “humiliating” behavior or other “outrageous” acts, that narrowly miss the torture mark. 

Another fun quote: 

“The amendments made…prevent persons from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in certain judicial proceedings. The Conventions are prohibited from being invoked in habeas corpus or civil proceedings to which the United States or a current or former agent of the United States is a party.” 

     Bush and Cheney have repeatedly tried to take the law into their own hands, and many people are sick of it. Cheney has tried to claim that waterboarding where “the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are gradually elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner…produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic’” is not torture. This is after the very admission of its status as torture in 2005. Futher, the Bush Administration has long since taken the liberty to assume that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to the Al-Qaeda under the pretext that it is a non-state actor. This idea was, however, rejected, since the Geneva Conventions apply to all human beings. 

     Nevertheless, if Obama doesn’t want to lead the charge against them, others do, most notably Vincent Bugliosi, Charles Manson’s prosecutor and three-time #1 New York Times Bestselling author who published The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder in 2008. He expresses his disgust with the inhumanity of the Iraq war:

If George Bush really and truly cared about the loss of thousands of young American lives in Iraq, and that of over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and was sensitive in the tiniest degree to the feelings of the victims’ survivors, how could he possibly have dismissed all the violence and bloodshed in Iraq by predicting it will someday be viewed as “just a comma” in the history of Iraq’s struggle for democracy (CNN, September 24, 2006)?

He then speaks about the corrupt enablers in the American government: 

“The most frightening thing of all, by far, is that this nation let Starr, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Bush get away with it, doing absolutely nothing to any of them. Bush, Starr, and the five Supreme Court justices in Bush vs. Gore, as horribly immoral as their respective conduct was, are, after all, just individuals.”

And now, it seems, we can add Obama to that list unless he grows a pair.

     There have been a gamut of various other attempts, such as by a prosecutor of Nazi war crimes and Lawrence Velvel from the Massachusetts School of Law who called for an examination of the Bush admin’s “record on war, torture, detention of innocents, electronic spying, and ‘use of executive branch lawyers to write professionally incompetent secret memoranda giving clearance to awful policies.’” For example, the extremely misguided destruction of a hospital in Fallujah in 2004, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions which calls for them to be places of asylum for the physically and mentally incapacitated, as well as the photographing and public humiliation of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib.

***

Will Bush get away with this? It’s uncertain. None of the efforts I have heard about look like they will be successful and Obama is “looking forward.” But, does he deserve to? Well, let’s see. 

Bush is clearly a violator of trust, international norms, and the standards of moral action.  Not only did he lie to get into the war, he then carelessly entrenched the nation in it with a prodigious waste of lives, and had the audacity to use torture, commit war crimes (as if entering in the war wasn’t enough) and, instead of being a virtuous person, tried to cover his own rear end with an interesting series of legal interpretations. In the words of Bugliosi, “if what he did is not the greatest crime ever committed by any public official or private citizen in this nation’s history, then I ask you, what is?”

Montana, I salute you.

“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

-Section 4 of HB 264, passed in the House and the Senate and only awaiting Govenor Brian Schweitzer‘s signature.

Suddenly, Glock’s Board of Directors (in Georgia), may decide that the weather is better in Montana. It will create thousands of jobs and an environment of safety, since the penal system has so obviously failed (and now sometimes farms out your labor to private companies, which is an alternative form of job creation. How honorable a system.)

It gets better. Maybe HB 639 (“Sound Money Bill” which calls for gold and silver to be accepted as legal tender within the State) will be passed. Maybe it won’t.  This would completely undermine current American economic activity and ridicule the idea of faith in the system. Thousands of people who are sick and tired of their fiat money and the government that creates it would go. I’d certainly be proud to have a bank account in Montana.

How many other states would follow suit? Oh perhaps the other 27 states that in 2009 have passed State Sovereignty Laws. Even the idiot governor of Texas has jumped on the bandwagon. Of course, he’s nothing but a silly politician following the wind where it takes him. Nevertheless, it shows that the world is moving away from caring what the US Federal Government things. The impending clash is coming, probably along with many other blows with other nations.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

The US Is a Good Place to Raise Your Children

Change we can believe in! Photo credit: dawwen.us/southcon

I woke up this morning to the sound of an airplane crusing over my head, it’s belly full of gasoline. I could imagine pretty stewardess walking past the little windows. Some order a whisky to calm their nerves. They can look down and see the jails, far from the city, the prisoners laboring outside for private companies, contrasting with the freedom of flying, of going to Cuba (not directly of course). The passengers were all able to pass security as others looked on in quiet desperation. But the number of people able to do this is dwindling.

Time reported the no-fly list at 31,000 back in 2005. What is the figure now? Over 700,000, as of April 2007 (p.67), now growing 20k a month, makes over a million people today, 1 in 300.* How has out government done so many honorable deeds? Well, in March 2008 in the “Audit of the US Department of Justice Terrorist Nomination Process” we learned that

“FBI field offices, at times, bypassed FBI headquarters and submitted nominations directly to the NCTC. This could result in the watchlisting of individuals without an FBI quality review…In addition to watchlist nomination activities, the FBI prepares terrorist-related intelligence reports that it disseminates throughout the intelligence community. Although the FBI did not intend for these reports to be official nominations, the NCTC created watchlist records and sourced them to the FBI…” (p.4).

And do people really believe it “makes the public feel more secure.” Why, because it’s just that much easier to get rid of a pesky member of society? Yeah, I feel secure knowing that I can go to check-in one day and be pulled aside to room 101. I feel secure knowing that the burden of defense can be put on me, as a random surprise as they won’t tell you if you are on such list, to prove I’m NOT a terrorist.  And I feel secure knowing their definition of a terrorist is more succinct than ever.

But, you know what I really like? Not being able to buy a gun if I’m on this list, says our friend and former Freddie Mac director, Rahm Emanuel.  And he’s right after all, as this is in accordance with Amendment 35 of the Constitution passed November 29th, 1959, the glorious day of Prince Emanuel’s  birth: “No citizen of the United States of America shall insult a federal agent, or otherwise voice his or her opinion, hereupon losing his or her right to air travel, free speach, due diligence, all other rights granted to more patriotic citizens. Rahm Emanuel and his successors retain the right to insert any clause here during his reign.”

Start at 1:05 to hear freedom ring:

Welcome to the Obamanation. Fortunately for some of us, there’s still a way out.

*Yet now the mother of all information, Wikipedia, cites CNN as saying it is under 3,000. What are the law makers suddenly opposed to the concentration of power in the hands of federal agents? Does the government want to say that there’s a conspiracy against it to make it seem unwieldy, unjust, and…oh wait.

Oxymoron of the Day: Mandatory Volunteerism

Photo Credits: Left photo taken from Barak’s Myspace; Right from Backspace.com

“We cannot continue to rely on the military to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded…”
-Barak Hussein Obama, July 2nd, 2008

“Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing people together from diverse ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
-Miscellaneous section, #6104, of the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act

It should be called the TAKE Act. Totalitarian Action and King-Obama’s Exploitation Act. It does not call for mandatory service in the Civilian Corps or other volunteer work as of today, but there’s no denying that it opens the door to such a thing. As this video points out, the eventual use of a law (I can’t reasonably see how it will fail in the Senate and Obama sure as hell isn’t going to veto it) doesn’t have to be the same as the intended purpose.

First, have a look at the freedoms participants must forfeit:  the right of “organizing or engaging in in protests, boycotts, petitions, or strikes,” “attempting to influence legislation,” or “engaging in religious instruction” (Sec. 125). Seriously, am I reading this wrong? They want to give incentives to people to give up their freedoms, essentially. How many Constitutional Amendments have we laughed at yet? Now let’s take a moment to think of why this would be necessary. After all, a participant is only a volunteer, teaching children to read, cleaning up the roads, right? Not necessarily.

Then comes the lovely header “National Civilian Community Corps.” Under the header “Purpose” (Sec. 151) it explains that it is to “combine the best practices of civilian services with the best aspects of military service, including leadership and team building, to meet national and community needs.” Why would it be necessary to give civilians military training in order to accomplish peaceful and civil tasks, such as “energy conservation”? That is one of their tasks, along with natural disaster management. Does the military need to be freed up from hurricane management to go fight more wars like in, say, Pakistan? Or is it more of a brainwashing kind of thing, installing a sense of nationalism. Suddenly, you’re special, an Obamanite, you patrol those streets with your head held high and your shoes shining bright. You’re serving the Obamanation. You believe in the change. Then what will you do? It’s rather tragically hilarious that they changed the titles of the corps leaders from “superintendent” to “campus director” and of the facilities from camp to “campus,” to make it sound more vanilla.

Now, let’s return to Obama’s quote about the civilian corps being just as strong as the military. What is this China circa 1950? And what does this imply? How many nuclear bombs and other WMD does the military currently possess? Red Guard 2.0? This is obviously very exaggerated, as the country just cannot fund this, but the idea remains and looks like phase one has a green light.

They put this in with a bunch of other programs such as giving kids the chance to work over the summer to earn $500 dollars, targeting the kids that come from the lower income brackets, as well as more wealthy children, as it will become a part of the educational system. “Service learning” will be mandatory for the blessed participants.

It will be voted on in the Senate today. But considering that it got 75% in the House, and not that many Democrats are against it (or willing to oppose it), it’s probably going to pass. We just have to see the final wording of the bill.

Congratulations on a successful first 100 days in office buddy!

The clip of Obama’s speech is here:

Business Blogs are Enlightened. Also, Telekinetic

March 17th, 2009, a business blog associated with The Guardian posted a lovely article called “Five Reasons Why Tax Havens and the Banking Crisis are Linked.“

This, of course, comes from the premise that the government (and anybody else, really) has the right to decide how much of your money, property, or physical person they can take and for what purposes. Further, it implies that you have no privacy. How dare you, miscreant!

The article is directed toward large banks that do this, but let’s examine these oh so enlightened reasons:

1) Offshore=out of mind
Granted.

2) Pushing rules to the limit is infectious:
This basically says that it creates a state of lawlessness, and the article implies that there exist “principles-based regulation” and those who oppose it are “people with no principles.” There’s a vast difference between the “spirit of tax law” (ignoring the fact that tax law is nothing like a law that says “Thou shalt not kill,” as this is ambiguous and taxes are not) and flat out robbery and extortion at gun point (most of the actual tax laws). This also implies that the laws are ethical, which is ludicrous, especially when they violate the rights granted by the Constitution.

3) Everyone must pay their fair share:
The first sentence is “we are all going to have to pay more taxes to clean up this mess.” Really, why? Why must you pay another man’s mortgage, bonuses for the executives of AIG, etc, and why are these people not out of office and living in destitution and shame? What are we going to do to enforce this? Close the borders, expand the no-fly list…

4) Complexity confuses everyone.
Thus, the answer is making sure that everything is national, registered, regulated by a rapidly expanding burocracy, and creating a network of taxes so that the banks can stay in business…How about eliminating some of the complex tax laws then, or maybe the how-many-page bailout bill? This is simply a misunderstanding of the problem. Fitting that he brings up red herrings…

5) Avoidance fuels unsustainable growth expectations:

Unfortunately for our friend the philosopher this isn’t the problem. Tax havens certainly don’t help the American nation, but their widespread use is not the cause, but a symptom, of the real source of lawlessness in the USA. You know what causes unsustainable growth expectations? OBAMA. The Democratic Party in general.The Federal Reserve.  Congress. I can’t help but ask the wonder why was this article written. Oh wait…