Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Restricted Usage

"National parks" are employed as long-term capital holding vehicles for the wealthy. By "preserving" a national park, the government prevents any old schmuck from trying to use the land--to farm, hike, hunt, build on, raise a family on, et cetera. The idea that the land is being protected for natural use is a farce, except in a very few instances where a park manages to become a tourist draw and generate money for the local economy. Most protected land is parceled out in small pieces, over decades or generations, to developers looking for new prime space.

Here's how it works: you colonize a continent, exterminate most of the natives, round the rest up into concentration camps for their own good, and then realize that, despite your massive wealth, you can't turn 100% of available quality land into NEW LUXURY CONDOS--NEXT RIGHT! So, as settlers move west to establish homesteads, you use "national parks" to prevent them from settling the choicest bits of land. Oceanfront, riverfront, and mountainside property, as well as property with rich natural resources, you lock up inside the preserves. It's a bit like doing your winter canning, because you can't eat 140 pounds of strawberries in one week (unless you share them with the starving families at the bottom of the hill).

Generations later, you crack open the national parks. All of a sudden, pristine acreage becomes resort hotels that back up to more pristine acreage, which latter land is prevented from further development by the interior of the national park--and which protections drive up the value of the slice you carved out. Coal, water, oil, iron, thorium, or whatever other goodies are waiting underground can be separately developed by different holding companies.

The peons see this happen all the time, and don't care. The small national parks scattered across North America are regularly handed out by state legislatures to their friends and families for developing new business, under the pretext that the business will help the local economy by providing 300 local mining jobs at the new coal mine (for about 17 years or so) or about 300 local hospitality service jobs at the new resort hotel (for about 150 years or so).

When it's time to open a bigger jar, like the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, the elites might be stunned. "Why," they might ask, "do you nincompoops suddenly care? You never cared, or noticed, before, after all."

"That is the purpose of the parks: to prevent you fools from accidentally building your house next to a pretty lake, where your granddaughter might later inherit it and have to be bought out for $2.5 million by one of the Hilton holding companies. If the land is "protected" from the vulgar uses of peons, it remains pristine, and can be purchased for $0 from the legislature when Hilton is ready to develop it.

Oh, and record-keeping

If you're inclined to more foreshadowing, remember how the DHS has records of all births, deaths, moves, name changes, employment, phone calls, letters, e-mails, and online purchases? Access to all those records will be restricted, of course--to protect not only national security, but the privacy of the individuals who were spied upon. 50 years from now, only the right kinds of journalists, sociologists, historians, and political scientists will have access to those records. Ergo when it comes time to release the dazzling new critical biography of [Famous/Influential Person], the elite journalist or scholar will be the only trusted source. Good connections will provide access to the "real" records.

Anyone can write about Shakespeare. In a few generations, though, you won't be able to write about anything in the humanities, and be taken seriously, unless you are one of the special, privileged scholars who has access to all the records. And, for reasons of scholarship, with greatest care given to the privacy of historical figures, government archivists will permit limited access, in special circumstances, to the top people in their respective fields. Anyone who makes arguments other than the ones from your privileged-access work is, by definition, uninformed--because they won't know what Shakespeare's buying patterns on eBay.com revealed about the true meaning of his plays.

*yawn* Nicky Hilton's correspondence home during sophomore year leadership camp, the collected text messages of Marshall Mathers, the case notes of Steven Spielberg's dermatologist, Google search terms entered by Stuart Macbride during the winter when he wrote his groundbreaking Someone Got Stabbed! Justice Scalia's favorite dessert in the Congressional Cafeteria...see how it works?

Saturday, July 27, 2013

'System has failed': Crowds react to Obama verdict


Crowds react outside the courthouse after Obama jurors give their not guilty verdict. (Photo: Frank Mortimer, Arken Images)

The Hague, Netherlands — Demonstrators exclaimed disbelief, one by one, as they learned on Saturday night that Barack Obama had been found not guilty of murdering Abdulaziz Huraydan.

At 10:02 p.m. ET "Justice for Abdulaziz!" chants erupted from fist-waving people at the fountain across from the courthouse.

"The system has failed!" irate demonstrators started chanting.

The waiting game under way for the hundreds of protesters anticipating a verdict outside the International Criminal Court Building was finally over.

Nina Mays of Tulsa, Okla., was outraged by the verdict. "This is going to impact a lot of little people real far away," Mays said minutes after the announcement, standing a few yards from chanting protesters. "How is the law different for one and not for the other? Abdulaziz was sleeping when Obama came and blew him up, a young man in bed," she said. "When do you blow people up for no reason? And why don't you get locked up for it when you do it?" she demanded, voice rising.

The large majority of the more than 350 sign-waving demonstrators wanted Barack Obama convicted of murder.

Ramon Silvia, 27, had been waiting for the verdict. "I think they are wrong," he said.

William Memola, a flooring contractor, displayed signs supporting Obama on Friday and Saturday. "It was the correct verdict. There are no winners. It's just, he can do whatever he wants, and that's the law," Memola said, standing on a sidewalk near the courthouse. "But there are no winners. It's terrible for all those people with weird-ass names. There's a million young boys who lost their lives," he said.

"It's just tragic. You can't help the verdict. It is what it is. He wrote the law -- he followed the law," he said.

U.S. resident Craig Woodord brought his 13-year-old son, Dante, to the courthouse Saturday afternoon to watch history in the making.

Dante wore a blue hooded sweatshirt and carried a bag of sugar and a can of liquid sugar.

"My son's 13. And it could have been him. And so my heart really, really goes out to the Huraydan family, who lost their son that was doing absolutely nothing wrong," Woodord said. "But nobody wins tonight. Barack Obama is free, and he never has to come out into society -- living with a lot of people that don't like him."

Fifteen-year-old Tristan Bailey was stunned after hearing the verdict. "I don't know what to say," he said. "It can't really be true that people die."

The teen identifies with Abdulaziz Huraydan. "He was just a kid, trying to sleep in his bed," Tristan said.

Shannon Mickey was also filled with disappointment. "We were all nervous when we knew the verdict was coming down," the 41-year-old said. "It was a sense of shock. An unbelievable sadness."

For roughly 12 hours, Biko Misabiko stood at the courthouse fountain helping hold a large black-and-red banner that declared "End Racial Oppression: Justice 4 Abdulaziz."

At 10:55 p.m., the 21-year-old folded up the banner -- which had been prominently featured in newscasts around the world -- and effectively ended Saturday's demonstration. "I was blessed to be a part of this historic moment. The system just failed us again, as human beings," Misabiko said, tucking the banner under his arm. "Oh man, this is a very hurtful day. Hurtful and disappointing," he said.

But James Dugan, a newly graduated American high school student, thought otherwise. His hand-held sign read "Justice For Barack."

"I think he was covered by being 'president.' I think he can kill whoever he wants -- and no one else can, except for maybe neighborhood watch captains," Dugan said. "More importantly, in his speech he said he's not guilty of any ill will or malice when he blew up that Abdul-whatever, and all them other stupid people," he said.

Earlier in the day, as dark clouds thickened overhead and a cooling breeze swept across the courthouse grounds there were a fresh series of chants from more Obama supporters. About 60 demonstrators began yelling in unison and waving signs, clustering around the large "Hillary 2016" banner. "Bomb Africa! Bomb Asia!" the demonstrators repeatedly chanted. "When I say Asia, you say boom! When I say Africa, you say kaboom! Asia! Boom! Africa! Kaboom!"

Sisters Melissa and Amy Waz of Manhattan traveled to the Netherlands to rally in support of Obama. Amy carried the sign "Killing Arabiacs Is A Basic Human Right," while Melissa wore a red and blue "Hope and Change 2008" T-shirt and carried the sign "We don't do body counts!"

"We don't think killers in high positions should be brought to trial. Look at Dub, dub, that Bush guy, and he's getting nice buildings dedicated to him," Waz said. "We think he deserves a third term before Hillary or someone else takes over to finish off Iran."

Earlier in the day as a reporter interviewed Casey David Kole Sr., a California retiree and Obama supporter, a man nearby interrupted the interview.

"I believe in Barack and what he stands for," Kole said. "The fact that he was the president when he could've stayed a law professor on a voluntary basis — it proves to me that he's an upright citizen."

That statement drew a rebuke from a nearby shirtless, young man. He held a sign that said "How Long Will 'They' Keep Killing Kids?"

"That's all it takes — some kind of government job — to be an upright citizen? If it was that simple," the man exclaimed, interrupting the interview.

Kole continued his interview, bringing up Abdulaziz's place of birth. The shirtless man interrupted again, retorting that that does not mean Abdulaziz was a criminal.

"Justice for Barack Obama," Kole began chanting, strolling around the grassy plaza.

Abby Cardona videotaped the two men.

The 52-year-old Busch Gardens woman said she wants to have a record of events for her 11-month-old granddaughter, Skylar. She plans to discuss the trial, and its impact on her community and country, when Skylar grows up.

"You never know how history distorts facts," Cardona said. "There's a lot of passion ... I only hope that they exercise their First Amendment rights, but don't resort to violence. That's not going to solve anything, cause they're not presidents."

Ansley DeRousha, 20, is a Dutch retail worker who lives about two miles away from the International Criminal Court.

"My belief is that two wrongs don't make a right," she said. "I really think that Obama and Abdulaziz, they were both in the wrong. Obama shouldn't have launched the missile, and Abdulaziz shouldn't have been born."

Contributing: Mackenzie Ryan, Amerikuh Today.

Honest Feedback

I once worked with someone who knew that, if he needed to get an honest opinion on one of his decisions, the best person to ask was one of his employees during work hours. Whenever he wasn't sure if he'd made the right call, he would ask a particular woman into his office, make a serious face, and spend about ninety minutes explaining the details of a brief social disagreement he'd had with someone (often the person ahead of him in line at the supermarket, a telemarketer, or an employee he'd recently disciplined or fired).

Amazingly enough, it turned out that he'd always made the right call. Once he'd finished explaining the situation, loosening his collar, and worrying that he might've overreacted for shouting at someone or canceling their vacation time, his employee would give an understanding nod--occasionally clasping his hand--and tell him that actually, he'd been on the right side of the situation. It was unfortunate how it had turned out, yes, but he'd acted correctly. What else were you supposed to do, when the other person had done that?

He was always relieved after these meetings. When he'd been told that he'd acted completely properly, demonstrated his much-mentioned professionalism in his personal as well as professional life, and made the gutsy choices that needed to be made, he would flit around the office, all in smiles, letting other people know about the conversation he'd just had, and the honest feedback he'd gotten.

On that note, consider that JK Rowling was recently "outed" as the writer of an acclaimed crime novel. By "acclaimed," they mean critically-acclaimed. The book, as the article notes, had sold about 1,500 copies, despite being thrust onto the front retail rack of bookstores across the globe, and getting full positive treatment from major reviewers. Once the product-positioning and "consumer reviews" failed to make the piece of junk sell enough copies, the Sunday Times launched an "investigation," and someone mysteriously let the book's brand affiliation slip. It then became an overnight bestseller, purchased in the millions by people who had made independent, educated consumer choices about the book based merely on its back-cover summary.

As to the ruination of her deception, Rowling lamented:
I had hoped to keep this secret a little longer because being Robert Galbraith has been such a liberating experience...It has been wonderful to publish without hype or expectation, and pure pleasure to get feedback under a different name.

Like political analysts, academic journal peer-review, or Conservative v. Labour v. Democrats v. Republicans, consumer product reviewers are great: they mollify not only the masses, but also some of the top people in the system itself, making them true believers. Ronald Reagan, for example, probably actually believed that the Democratic Party of the United States was against his policies to lower taxes on the wealthy and slaughter Nicaraguan babies. Smarter cons, like Obama, know what's going on, but a not-insignificant percentage (sic) of the American Congress probably actually believes that they are legislators doing the best they can within the system.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, here's a good maxim for the times:

If it is someone's job to review a product or service, they are getting paid, through intermediaries, by the producers of that product or service. They are not objective or "outside." Their job is to appear to be a third-party in order to encourage hapless consumers to buy and to buy more. Any mild or negative perspectives they offer are done as part of the scheme, in order to make it appear that their positive reviews have meaning.

The White House Press Club--the U.S. News & World Report "college rankings"--the list of the best online MBAs--the hottest 10 new restaurants in your part of town--the best new energy-efficient pickup trucks of the year-- *yawn*

And Then Came The Next One.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Hope 7 ~ It Is Futile


Series Overview Part 1 ~ Inherited Energy

Hope 1 discussed the hyperabundance of light ("energy") available from Sol ("our solar system alone"). Hope 2 developed our exploration of said abundance by discussing the exponential power of embracing ("capturing and utilizing") said energy.

Taking consideration of our available energy and resources is important because it is to those assets we are entitled. If you are an orphaned maiden being raised in a large house by a cruel guardian and his children, it may be your right, by virtue of blood, to inherit your parents' mansion and investments. However, a clever guardian may trick you, in order to gain the investments for himself. By letting the house fall into disrepair, and spending years feeding your stories of bad prices and your parents' idiocy, he may send you out the door at 18, with 80 pounds 2 pence in hand, believing that the sum is all that is left--and that you are lucky to have only that. You would need to examine the accounts, going years back, to realize that you had been tricked. Accordingly, whenever you tried to examine the accounts, your guardian would mock you: his sons would beat you for trying to pick the lock into the upstairs office; the guardian would insult you when he found you practicing your sums in the study, telling you that girls were no good at math; he would bring accomplices by the house to put on acts, telling you about problems with "the lumber market" and "your parents' overseas ventures," trying to build within you a sense of foreboding and dread. He would want you to believe that you were too stupid to understand your inheritance, and that you were cursed with nothing, so that you would go out into the world and starve, rather than come into what was yours, and force him to ply his trade of hopeless lies elsewhere (or to work honestly, which would require work).

The early portions of the Hope series examined the resources available only in this solar system to counter a narrative carefully built up by elites since the industrial age. Prior to industrialism, elites had perverted concepts of spirituality to make people afraid of communication, exploration, and technology, hoping to keep them in thrall--in developmental stasis, as it were--to elite power. By lying to people about God not wanting them to read, to sail too far, or to look into telescopes, elites were able to prevent technological discoveries that resulted in people being able to communicate with one another across wider areas; to entrap and use more of the Earth's stored energy; to build all sorts of cool toys.

Capturing Industrialism

When people finally broke past the explicit barriers to technological progress, elites captured the industrial age. Warning people that their inventions would be stolen by others if they didn't sell their inventions to elites, intellectual property was further developed to lock up new scientific breakthroughs in the hands of the ancient, inherited titles and capital that had stymied social and technological development for eons. As always, elites could rest on their laurels throughout early industrialism, using their control of governments, mass communication, land, aggregated labor, and armies to ensure that new technologies would be controlled. Inventors were occasionally granted a place in recorded history, while robber barons "owned" the "companies" that told workers how to think up, develop, and build new products using new technologies.

The advances of industrialism were infuriating to elites because they represented a chaotic breakthrough. After centuries upon centuries of starvation and war, travel and communication threatened to unite humanity. Even controlling technologies, enough traveling by commoners not under military control might break the idea of formal "states." Most formal "noble" distinctions had already been downsized during earlier phases, but enough communication and technology could have entirely eliminated the real barriers that kept the show going.

The World Wars were able to kick in and save elites from industrialism. By commodifying inventions, placing them under the control of corporations and governments, and using them to extract rents ("profits") from people, technology came to be seen (in many aspects rightly, though misplacedly) as a bad thing. Older generations sneered at younger generations' excitement at goodies, saying "We did without ______," not because they actually hated the product itself, but because they hated the way it was being used to re-deaden and exploit people. For a modern example, consider the internet, e-mail or Facebook--at their essence, they're really, really good venues for communication, but turned into a cheap commercial venture, they actually augment the stupid of the available zeitgeist (sic), possibly making things worse than they would've been without the availability of said technology.

The World Wars took the consumer tricks to the logical next step. Once people had been encouraged to identify with specific types of products, and to hoard, rather than share, them--as had been done so successfully with land, agriculture, animal husbandry, alloys, architectural techniques, and languages (e.g. Greek, then Latin)--those products could be used to frighten. Once you have an aeroplane or a machine gun, if you are not sufficiently developed and integrated with your planet, you begin to worry about the aeroplane or machine gun owned by someone in another "country." Like so many professional wrestling grudges or NCAA Final Four tournament build-ups on late-twentieth-century television (owned and operated by the children and grandchildren of the original Great Warmongers), elites were able to coordinate loyalties, alliances, rivalries, and costumes, and drive the industrial nations to war with "one another."

The result was, of course, World Wars I and II: the introduction of "total wars," where it was no longer sufficient to send a bunch of ignorant grunts to raze foreign cities. Instead, entire populations now needed to become part of the war through their cultural participation and production of weapons of mass destruction.

To a modern person, this sounds silly, because it sounds like a given--of course every citizen is, in some small way, a part of war, right? That conception, though, is quite new. The ignorant masses used to be largely unaware of war. A lord might impress his serfs into service, and whispers might spread that they were going to have a battle, but the mass cultural passion, down to the lowliest peons, was not present. Battle was something that some of the men sometimes got dragged off to, but for everyone else, the harvest continued as normal. War was just something the lords did, or later, something that lords and trade guilds did as part of colonialism.

"Industrialism," then, became a bad thing. And, as Jon Lovitz would say, "as far as periods go, oh, it was a mother!" It was terrible (and still ongoing, though it can be reasonably subdivided into a "post-" phase). It was not, though, because of the technology itself: the elites have always hated and resented anything that diminished, or made more difficult, their direct control over everyone. Invent cars, and they will invent speed limits and highway patrol departments; invent televisions, and they will invent commissions to imprison those who broadcast without a license; discover oil, and they will kill six million of you to ensure you don't try to sell it on your own.

We Have Sinned

In preparation for a mass die-off, Earth's elites have laid the sociocultural (and, certainly, economic) preconditions to acceptance of austerity. The "shared sacrifices" of the Obama administration, which are being coordinated by elites worldwide, are based on the following myth:
Industrialism was so traumatic and sinful that we are left running low on resources. We must punish ourselves. We must deny ourselves, hurt, and become weaker and smaller, if we are ever going to survive the terrible situation we have gotten ourselves into.

This is why focusing on energy is important. The potential energy easily and readily available to us, as covered in parts 1 and 2, is so astronomically (sic) high that we have, in many ways, not even taken our first breath.

When they told us, before the end of the dark ages, that we were too stupid to read the Bible, it was not true. It is similarly not true that we should be wetting our pants because we are running out of the oil they never wanted us to combust anyway. The sins of industrialism were theirs: the exploitation of workers happened in order to consolidate profits in the hands of elite owners, and not because it was necessary in order to make new products. The wretchedness of consumer culture was designed to keep things hovering in planned obsolescence and superficiality, to avoid real advancement, and not because giving gifts or delighting in art or artifice is a bad thing. The pollution of the planet was caused deliberately. It was a creature borne of both the short-sighted greed of industrial overlords, the harried struggle of industrial middle-managers, and, most importantly and influentially, the deliberate strike against technological advancement carried out by the elites themselves, who needed plausible evidence to justify stopping human growth and development.

All of the landfills, chemical runoff, misdirected solvents, and atrociously bad choices in materials and chemical engineering were caused in order to make technology look bad. In short, Megacorp, Inc. dumped the junk into the river, rather than cleaning it, so that later on, it could use the polluted river to justify laying off lives.

To the western mind, this may again seem stunning: why would anyone pollute a river? The easy answer is, "Because polluting the river was cheaper than treating the waste." If you can draw this conclusion, then you are willing to recognize that it is possible for humans to deliberately pollute in order to obtain profit.

Move, now, to a more advanced form of the same conclusion. Perceive that the river was polluted not merely for short-term profit, but for long-term profit. By polluting the river, and making industrialism look bad, environmental ravages could be used as justification for impoverishering billions of people across the entire planet, thereby increasing the purchasing power of the wealth held by elites, and their control over society. If you can accept the short-term conclusion--Megacorp poisoned the river to increase its profits next quarter--then you can understand, and accept, the long-term conclusion--Megacorp poisoned the river to massively increase its profits a hundred years later. (The ability of elites to think and plan in a selfish, inter-generational way is, in many ways, a trump card they have over the shortsighted, death-terrified masses.)

The environmental pollution we see is not because technology is inherently sinful. (Right now, we are seeing the deliberate seeding of profane genes into the food supply in order to cause similar tragedies generations later, setting the stage for the claim that genetic modification is, in and of itself, bad.)

The Fall

We now see in austerity rhetoric a return to the Fall from Eden. Elites, who have always hated the free use of power and energy (e.g., antilife standing contra to light), have finally polluted, ravaged, and dumbified enough to gain broad acceptance of the condemnation of industrialism. While old holdouts used to scoff at the idea that technology was bad, enough of them have now died out, and generations of propaganda has convinced people that every aspect of industrialism was bad--not merely the bad aspects. Our sin--whether it be building the Tower of Babel too high, tasting the apple of knowledge, flying too close to the sun, loving too much, having homosexual sex, or whatever stupid "sin" you prefer--has come back to haunt us, they say, because now we are "running out" of energy, and we must, therefore, perish.

Ergo backlash is necessary. The great punishment they have wanted to inflict for so long--a killing-off of the human populations that have been increasing ever since agriculture and animal husbandry replaced the following of the herd (which isn't to disregard the associated negatives and positives of either method in that phase, either; that phase went through its own shades of gray that merit separate explanation)--is the prize for which they can use the post-industrial age. Concise, easily-understandable, well-marketed, occasionally-alliterative tropes like "peak oil," "climate change," "greenhouse gas," and "shared sacrifice" are all "true" in the sense that they're happening or going to happen, but not true in the sense that they mean "inevitable calamity justifying a reduction in the Earth's population."

The Blight

Energy does not fail us. Resources do not fail us. The lie that there "is not enough" is an old trick of the western monotheistic empires. The Irish Potato Famine, for example, brought to you straight by the inbreeding capital of the world, spent decades being considered by all respected historians to be a "famine." That's why it still has the name, even though it wasn't a famine. Like the ongoing African Genocide or Arab Genocide, there never was any "famine," or lack of resources; the Potato Famine was caused by British financial manipulation of Ireland, wherein the claim "there isn't enough [resource]" was used to murder over a million people. (Yes, over a million; no, there are no current plans for construction on the Washington Mall.)

The British, about whom enough bad things cannot be said, invaded and conquered Ireland, doing all the normal conquering stuff that it, and its bastard child America, are doing in Somalia right now--putting babies to the torch, gang raping and killing women, clubbing lines of people into mass graves and stealing their stuff, et cetera. In 1801, they appointed a few of those ugly, pasty, mixed-gene praetors ("viceroys") to act as localized tyrants, breaking up common land and shifting the Irish population into slave labor. Like an early Monsanto combined with the IMF, the tyrants then replaced all local crops with potatoes, made the economy artificially reliant on them, and then introduced a potato "blight" that wiped out the system. The troublesome colonized population of former rebels then lost to death a million potential resistance fighters, as well as another million that left the continent to become--surprise, surprise--low paid wage labor in British factories, who knew they had nowhere else to go.

The "famine" was not a famine because there was a shortage of available food; despite the potato blight, there was always enough food being produced, right there, by those very people. The food was simply being sent away to the pieces of indescribable noble filth that populated England, based on the colonial structure of resource extraction. There were, even, enough potatoes, but those had to go keep little Harrys and Georges and Kates farting through silk so a million Irish babies could die and not regain independence. The potato blight helped out by making it appear that (1) the Irish farmers themselves, and (2) natural disaster, were responsible for the mass starvation. Blights are caused by singularities in supply. Like centralized networks of all kinds, creating centralized food structuring is a way of setting up dominoes so that they all fall at the push of one. Food singularities share vulnerabilities, so that a failure in one form of the system cascades to the rest of the system.

Causing Blights To Wipe Out Subhumans

The French have pulled this kind of crap on Indonesian and southeast Asian colonies, too, by restructuring rice-farming under the singularity model, making it vulnerable to single-cause cascades and causing mini "famines" that weren't important enough to mention in western history books. When the French would invade, say, a Laotian village, they would kill the loudest troublemakers, terrify the others with a police state, then promise to use advanced technology to help increase food yields. The French would then destroy all the old style of rice, which had been sustaining people for generations, wipe out rice paddies, and use slave labor to build new, improved rice paddies. Resource extraction would be ramped up, and all paddies would be linked together under the same seeds, de-weeded, and put on fixed watering schedules for reasons of efficiency.

Things would work well in the village for a year or even a few years, and the people would believe that the French were, indeed, benevolent scientists helping them out. But then, problems would happen: a single crop failure would become a total crop failure, as the incestuous strains would all prove themselves vulnerable to the same kinds of weather conditions, where in previous generations, only a few paddies would die, while other, different paddies would survive. Plagues of rats came, also: the "inefficient method" of the villages' forebears--of having un-centralized water distribution systems which resulted in water pooling in some paddies and drying up in others--turned out to be a way to keep rats and other pests from thriving. Once the colonial invaders had provided constant, efficient water sources, great plagues of rats and beetles would have full-time water, breed in unnatural numbers, and wipe out whatever crops that plant disease hadn't already finished off.

Nach, the British understood this when they starved Ireland; it had been a trick used by Kings and Queens in India for dozens of years. Singularity cascades are one of the most efficient ways for elites to wipe out "excess" populations, weaken defending armies, and make the survivors reliant on the "charity" of the colonists.

Not Enough To Go Around

The key thing to remember when looking at all of these Resource Murder models is that, no matter how bad things get, there is always enough. The deliberate "poor planning" of environmental destruction and fossil fuels is not, no matter how much it seems when you are facing it, either inevitable or honest. The resources are there. Ireland net-exported food to the Hanoverian scum during the Great Hunger, just as Nigeria now net-exports billions of dollars of oil while its people starve under the control of American-backed warlords. The resources are there. They are there for all Earthlings. If they appear to be not there, it is because elites, and their priestly sycophants, are funneling them away to somewhere else, so that you will starve.

Do not be fooled by the latest famine ploy. Do not lose hope. There is, and always will be, enough energy. Even in the little Milky Way, there is and always will be enough energy to feed, house, and constantly entertain, more people than you can currently imagine. Anyone who tells you otherwise is short-sighted and frightened of life, or a malicious wormtongue who is keeping you distracted while his boss rapes your family, cleans out your fridge, and burns down your house.

The stars of your verse burn so brightly that there will always be enough light. It is futile to demean them.

Continued in Part 8.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Study: Gays Aren’t Becoming Landscape Artisans Because of Confidence Issues

WASHINGTON, DC, July 21, 2013 — American homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to work on landscaping crews, and to become landscape artists, because they prefer other occupations, right? Not necessarily, suggests a new study in the October issue of the Arken Sociological Review.



The study found that the real issue for homosexual landscapers is their lack of “professional role confidence.” This phrase, voted "best new business phrase for 2013" by a sub-committee of Forbes magazine columnists, was created by High Arka Funworks' Full Information Security project in late 2009. Among other things, the term "professional role confidence" encompasses people’s faith in their ability to go out into the world and be professional landscape artists and their belief that landscaping fits their interests and values, which the study authors refer to as “expertise confidence” and “career-fit confidence,” respectively. A team from Webster's could not be contacted on whether these new terms would be formally added to the language.

The six-year study was sponsored by the Review, with initial funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a $4.3 million grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and substantial assistance from the University of California at Berkeley. The Institute of Education Sciences kicked in another $1.6 million, as well as enacting the policies that required 50,000 seventh-graders, 12,000 first-graders, and 66,000 college freshmen, nationwide, to be interviewed and tracked during school hours for the study.

“Gay landscapers work on the same work crews, purchase the same equipment at Home Depot, and get the same feedback from their foremen as straight landscapers--sometimes even better feedback," said the study’s lead author Erin Blech, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Crabtree Institute for Labor & Sexuality Research. Although Blech has been unable to find work in the private sector, she was able to become a nationally renowned researcher after agreeing to help her dissertation adviser achieve the funding for this study. “But, what we found is that the gays in our study developed less confidence in their landscaping expertise than the straights did and they also developed less confidence that landscape artistry is the career that fits them best, even though they went through the same preparation process as the straight ones.”

As result of these confidence issues, homosexuals who spent their winters making a few extra dollars working on landscaping crews are less likely than heterosexuals to return to landscaping later, and less likely than heterosexuals to believe that they will be professional landscapers in the future, Blech said.



So, why do gay landscapers develop significantly less confidence than straight ones?

“It stems from very subtle differences in the way that gays and straights are treated on landscaping, construction, or road-work crews and from cultural ideologies about what it means to be a good landscaper,” Blech said. “Often, competence in landscaping is associated in people’s minds with straight people utilizing rakes more than it is with gay people carrying containers of old leaves. Gay people are often thought of as 'neat' and 'tidy,' while landscapers are thought of as 'dirty,' so, there are these micro-biases that happen, and when they add up, they result in gays being less confident in their expertise and their career fit.”

The conclusion of the study focuses its attention on thousands of students who worked on landscaping crews during the summer after their freshman year at college at four institutions of higher education, whose curricula and academic paths were all adjusted to allow the study coordinators to better examine the students and their work environment: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, and Smith College. As part of the study, the students were surveyed in June and again in August.

“While our sample is small, compared to the number of landscapers nationwide, we found no evidence that homosexual workers' desires to stay clean leads them to leave landscaping jobs or impacts whether they believe they will be professional landscapers in the future,” Blech said. "Almost invariably, they told us they showered as soon as they got home from work, so it 'didn't really matter' that they got dirty during their work hours."

Blech added that prior research has shown that, when asked to fill out multiple-choice question sheets by postdoctoral researchers interested in sexuality and labor issues, the subjects of such studies were invariably honest, complete, and insightful in their answers. "This is why we can trust these results so much," Blech confirmed. "It took God knows how many millions of dollars, and thousands of people coordinating across the country, but we managed to condense subjects' A-D answers into information that gave us something we could write about."

As for what can be done to improve gays' confidence and increase the likelihood that they will return to landscaping jobs, Blech offered several recommendations: "It's clear to me that more gays should be working in landscaping. Some of the test subjects feel that they have free will, but I've determined that they were in error, and that, if they had chosen the right way, they would have chosen landscaping careers. I think the most direct way that landscaping foremen can address this issue of gays giving up on landscaping is by doing a better job of bringing real landscapers into college classrooms," said Blech, who suggested that some of these landscape artists could be drawn from France, where professional homosexual outdoor labor is more culturally common.



"Gays seem comfortable working construction, but not landscaping," Blech complained. "I just can't figure it out, and neither can the Institute. That's why...this study is so important."



Landscapers who are brought into classrooms should address the issue of confidence head on, Blech said. “It would be good for them to talk about their confidence in their expertise and their confidence that landscaping is the right fit for them!” she screamed, frothing at the mouth. “If these things can be brought to the forefront and explicitly talked about, it may help gays who enjoy laying sod and raking leaves develop confidence of their own.”

When asked if she might leave her career as a career-confidence researcher to go into landscaping, Blech threw an iPad at our interviewer. "This is what I chose, and it's not your business to question that!" she said, according to the microphone that was still running in the hand of our then-unconscious interviewer. "It's not my job to fix problems, all right? It's my job to study them!" The recording device then registered several minutes of a mysterious, metallic scraping noise, along with Blech's telephone call to her postgraduate adviser at Stanford, who invited her to a supper at the university's Hoover House. Our interviewer awoke several hours later, inexplicably missing the nail of her left index finger.

In a later interview with a team of armed journalists, Blech ordered all landscaping crew supervisors nationwide to promote internship programs for new crew-members, pairing them with more experienced landscapers on real-world projects. "I've offered the teams the...use of my parents' oceanside home, which needs some freshening after last winter's storms," she explained. "This experience would integrate explicit learning objectives related to advancement in a landscaping career with a broad range of skills required for success as a landscaper,” Blech said.

“This type of practical real life landscaping experience, conceived of by my team of sociology postgrads, could help broaden students’ often narrow conceptions of the role of landscapers to include skills that they might not realize are important such as communication and teamwork. These internships could also increase students’ awareness about the wide variety of landscaping careers available to them, including not just raking, but lawnmower riding, use of traditional "push" mowers, vehicle maintenance, and sprinkler system repair."

Blech’s study coauthors include: Brian Rubineau, an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations; Susan Silbey, the Leon and Anne Goldberg Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Carroll Seron, a Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society at the University of California-Irvine. Professor Rubineau was able to assist Cornell in obtaining its share of the funding for the project, by convincing the New York State Legislature to cancel its controversial low-income kindergarten breakfast program, and redirect the funds to the study.

Their study is part of an even larger, more expensive, and more universally valuable project, “Manicured Paths: Developing Diverse Crews for Diverse Landscapes,” funded by the Science and Faith Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

# # #

About the Arken Sociological Association and the Arken Sociological Review

The Arken Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 2005, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science, a faith, and a profession, and promoting the proper use of our sociology by host societies. The Arken Sociological Review is the ASA’s flagship journal.

The research article described above is available by request for employees of our media outreach branches.

Time and Relevance

Modern naturalism "derives" from scientific revolutionaries, but so did the Third Reich, The Monkees, and Weight Watchers. That kind of derivation is not very meaningful.

When I say that modern naturalism derives from fiscal overlords, what I mean is that it bases all of the evidence, on which the naturalist draws her conclusions about the world, upon the scientific consensuses that were paid for, disseminated, and supported by the plutocrats many naturalists so regularly decry.

This philosophy may be accurate. However, it rests only on the world that the reigning powers of the naturalist's day--the international financial elites who control world governments, corporations, armies, police forces, entertainment, science, education, public opinion, etc.--have described. All those studies, institutions, books, articles, childhood classes, and answers from your parents came from that information; from those sources.

Can you accept that, oh naturalist? The Democratic Party of the United States, for example, fosters evolution by natural selection and the Big Bang, thereby supplying the answers to the most profound questions about our existence, and the existence of the entire universe. The most fundamental claims about matter, reality, and consciousness rest upon the scientific conclusions of the industrial and post-industrial tyrant states, and it is from those conclusions that the naturalist takes the next steps.

When these elites' conclusions are challenged, they make themselves out to be rebels, because their new conclusions have claimed to be the successors of mild, bourgeois rebels now hundreds of years dead. This is untrue; the impoverished Jesus may have been a rebel in his day, but the later, Christianized Roman Empire had no claim to any legacy of "Christian rebellion" against authority, empire, religious conformity, poverty, et cetera--even if they had the biggest churches and the most golden crosses.

Similarly, the technocrats of today claim that they are rebels because they call themselves "scientists," and some rebels in the past also called themselves scientists. Galileo, though, offending the most powerful men in the world by insisting upon observational evidence, bears no resemblance to the educational megacorporations that drug "hyperactive" workers, sweep the citizenry with radioactive fields, and dismiss debate as a pointless exercise.

The seeds of the next phase's horror wait inside the hopeless narratives of those who now slaughter children.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

*sigh* some Zimmerman crap

Sean sez, in a discussion elsewhere:
You are misinterpreting the “reasonable doubt” instruction given to juries. It is not an invitation to construct as many imaginary scenarios as you can where the defendant might be innocent. It is to take the scenario being given to you be the prosecution and determing whether the scenario is plausible and sufficiently backed by evidence to where you have no doubts in its veracity. If you do have any “reasonable” doubts, then you are required to vote not guilty. It is one of the few worthwhile ideas in our injustice system.

Sean, although you feel there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin to death based on a threat to his life, do you also feel that there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman stopped his car, which had working headlights, and got out of the car to check a street sign:

(1) In his own neighborhood;

(2) Where he had been living for years;

(3) Where he had been working on the neighborhood watch for those years, and called in dozens of reports about the locations of people in the streets of that neighborhood;

(4) When the person he was supposedly concerned about the police catching was, at the same time, "on the move" away from that very street.

Also, after he stopped the car, Martin kept walking, and Zimmerman went over to check the street sign, did Zimmerman then "walk" up to Martin? With Martin walking in the other direction?

Zimmerman reported, at one point, that he walked up--that he didn't have to jog or run to catch up, even though he'd first stopped his car, put it in park, taken off his seatbelt, gotten out, shut the door, gone to the street sign, squinted at the sign, then turned around to continue pursuit. However, he later changed it to walking innocently down the street when Martin "jumped out of the bushes" and said something about "homie," at which point this fight started.

Your version of "reasonable doubt"--a version that depends on plausible human memory and behavior, as well as the 60-second minute--does not comport with Zimmerman's story. The only way he could have overtaken Martin in the rain, with a lead, after he'd been denied permission to pursue (especially after stopping his car to "check a street sign") would violate his story, because it would require, at the last, a brisk jog.

What his story spells out is that he stopped his car near Martin, asked the 911 operator if he could confront the suspect, and was then denied permission. When he was denied, he got upset, and got out of his car to go after Martin anyway. Martin saw a guy watching him in the car, plotting on the phone, and then the guy stopped the car, got out, and rushed at him with a gun. That is plausible "standing your ground," and a justified first punch in the nose. Zimmerman's actions, and the little mistakes he made in his story later (about why he got out of his car, how he caught up to Martin, and whether or not he was ambushed or just "walked up to" the kid), are the only portions of the story that are not plausible.

Oh, and have you ever had your head slammed into the concrete? Zimmerman got a bloody nose from getting punched, and some scuffles from when he tried to take the kid down afterward and got, as only a crude and sexist person might put it, "bitched." He did not get his head "slammed into the concrete"--his mild lacerations (widdle scwatches) came from a brief tussle--say, trying to keep a 140 lbs. dripping-wet 17-year-old from taking his gun away.

His injuries, and their quite-rapid healing, go along, reasonably, with what you'd expect from a fat coward playing rent-a-cop by stalking and attacking a black kid. This is why Zimmerman did not get an X-ray, or more importantly, a CT scan, for having his head violently and repeatedly slammed into the concrete. (From a medical perspective, there is no way he wouldn't have gotten told to have a CT scan if he'd actually gone in for such an experience). If Zimmerman had just gotten whacked like that, and had bleeding in the brain or an aneurysm, he should've had some after-effects, not the least of which would've been a legitimate concern about going to the doctor. Instead, he was able to calmly report things to the cops, go home, come back the next day, tell a slightly different version of the story with more violence, and not worry about his health at all. He reasonably did not go to the doctor because anyone examining him would've been able to tell it was just a few scratches, and that he didn't even have any bruising, or anything else that would've saved him from getting second-degree for attacking and shooting some kid.

That's why "reasonable doubt" does not actually mean "plausible"--it means luck, money, and popularity.

Truth Remains

-the sense that, at some level, you have to lie to them to make them feel worse, or to feel better. To give them hope or despair. It's a responsibility that comes with your superior intellect and/or insight: to deceive them so they'll perceive a danger they might miss, or to give them a shred of false happiness before the ship goes down, because it doesn't matter anyway.

That's another level of the trap. That kind of malevolence is stupid; that benevolence is malevolent. Both fail, and the failure of each is greater because of the greater responsibility incumbent upon those with greater sight (if truly present).

The lies of Plato, Strauss, or the brave Shogun are not noble because they occasionally bring a terrified happiness at a promise of eternity. The vituperative ranting of the critic who sees deeper is a furtive, temporary expansion of bellicosity, conducive neither to courage nor growth. Only in truth is their goodness; only in goodness is truth. Insert Choice Of Synonym.

Among these certain other councils are, seemingly always, advocates for despair or regression, sent bearing false hope as a balm for current woes. It is the same lazy answer as once befuddled prior versions. Yet it entraps, for despair may follow always, particularly in earlier stages of empathy; it calls an offering to take up the mantle of the noble, yet false, prophet. "Lend them a good despair, for your lies will bring a comfort that is much needed in the now."

Do not try what failed you before. Your greater insight has already taught you that lying for good is a fleeting promise of future failure. This does not change at any point.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Safety Zones & Reasonable Rape

Whenever someone (who is not, essentially, in a wheelchair) is raped or killed without witnesses to the whole crime, "reasonable doubt" enters the picture. Under American justice, no unwitnessed violent crime can ever achieve certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless the perpetrator assists in her or his own conviction.

Juries can conclude that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but they're never correct, legally, even if they're correct in a moral, ethical, or factual sense. It is always possibly that the rapist's story "she wanted it, and she wanted it rough, and she was holding the candlestick over her throat because she's a gasper" is true. Similarly, it's always possible that the murderer's story "he suddenly attacked me so I had to shoot him" is correct. Barring the rape victim having been diagnosed brain-dead, or the murder victim having been brain-dead, paraplegic, comatose, wheelchair-bound, or something similar, there is always a logical, rational, potential reasonable doubt.

"Reasonable doubt," then, tends to be equivalent to middle-school student council elections in rationality, in that one person's reasonable is never another's. The social standards of any time period, coupled with a thousand other things, chief among them the wacko opinions of any given judge or jury member (or jury/media/attorney/sequestration-hotel dynamic), determine how "reasonable" any doubt can be.

Because the girl really could have been a gasper, asking for her larynx to be smashed, or the boy really could have suddenly attacked a bigger man out of nowhere. There is always reasonable doubt; there is always a reasonable way to construct any narrative, and only varying sets of prejudices that will inform different groups as to which parts of an explanation are reasonable, and which not.

The only way to overcome the hypothetical standard is to treat it as a sham, and so it is: because there is always reasonable doubt, cops and prosecutors trick perpetrators into giving themselves away by unsettling them, questioning them, repeating things, scaring them with legions of potential indictments to curry easier plea-bargains, and, if that all fails, actually holding a trial where jurors can convict anyone they don't like. In the rare circumstance where "reasonable doubt" actually has an impact on a case, it's when the accused is lucky enough, or perpetrator clever enough, to have (1) a jury who "likes" them for some unfathomable and inappropriate reason, or (2) a jury that is stupid enough to actually apply reasonable doubt (e.g., a jury that can't possibly convict, because there is always reasonable doubt).

There was reasonable doubt for O.J. The LAPD probably did attempt to frame him, but even when they'd blundered through all of it, he was still the one who'd committed the murder. Nonetheless, there was reasonable doubt, because the LAPD could have planted even the evidence that they hadn't actually planted (if they'd had an extra several secret agents working on the case).

The Fairness and Unfairness of Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt is always there, and it's appealing as a legal concept because, if actually applied, it would prevent all innocent people from being convicted, prevent all victimless crimes from being enforced, and end the American police state. It's reasonable to assume that someone planted the marijuana in your backpack while you were getting change for the subway--hundreds of people a minute pass by that point, and any one of them could've seen the transit cop before you did, and tried to get rid of the stuff so as to avoid arrest. It's reasonable to assume that any murder victim could've started the fight with a deadly weapon, surprised or overpowered you, and necessitated the murder (especially if you have time to rough yourself up a little afterwards).

Reasonable doubt seems fair because it prevents you from being convicted (in theory) only on "circumstantial" evidence. Pursuant to circumstantial evidence, anyone at the scene of a murder could be guilty, because they all lived and the victim died. Pursuant to circumstantial evidence, any sex could be rape after either partner changed his or her mind; any sparring match could be a violent assault. There are innumerable ways, gone into in great detail in mid 20th century American cinema, about how circumstances can make it appear that someone was obviously guilty, even though they're actually (and also obviously) not. Circumstantial evidence is a terrible deciding factor; it's what Obama's handlers use to blow up ten thousand kiddies, because they lived across the street from someone who might've once visited a part of Pakistan that could've been controlled by the Taliban during that time period if anyone had been there to witness it who was trustworthy (actually, even Obama stretches circumstances to several leagues beyond the breaking point, but you get the idea).

Circumstantial evidence, clearly, sucks. But then, so does reasonable doubt, because reasonable doubt gets everyone off. Any rapist, ever, could claim "she wanted it," and that could be true--females do have sex drives. They are not all chaste Christian virgins who have sex three times in their life to conceive three children, as hard as that may have been for the children of the Puritans to accept. Reasonable doubt gets all rapists off, unless they're stupid enough (or frightened enough) to confess, which is why reasonable doubt got thrown out the window in rape prosecutions where the rapist does not make a huge, graphic mistake, like (1) break down sobbing and ask the cops if he can just get probation if he confesses, or (2) claim the sex didn't happen at all, forgetting about physical evidence. And reasonable doubt, of course, can justify why O.J. and Zimmerman were not convicted. There was reasonable doubt, even though both of those men killed the people they were accused of; there is always reasonable doubt (unless you're one of the targeted minorities, crimen-exceptum "committers," or foolish early-bargainers).

So, reasonable doubt sucks as a standard, too. If it were applied, judges would throw out almost every criminal case, prosecutors and cops would be prevented from cutting bargains with hapless accused by tricking them into not asking for a lawyer despite Miranda, and that would be that for the criminal law. Nine guilty men would go free so that one innocent man would not be punished, and so forth.

If you're a fan of "reasonable doubt," and of trial results where a killer is not punished by virtue of an explanatory story, then you have to be ready to accept a world where any non-witnessed, non-wheelchair killings are assumed to be self defense--and the crime of non-witnessed rape vanishes. In short, if you support defenses of "reasonable doubt," then you're in favor of all-male juries watching as a male lawyer asks "reasonable" questions about a raped secretary's past sexual relationships, to establish that she did, in fact, "want it." And you're probably not in favor of that, right? To accept that females have (1) a sex drive, that (2) all the details of that sex drive shouldn't be made public, that (3) all humans may make their own decisions, including changing their minds about what they want at any point they damn well please, and (4) it is not your personal right to decide what another person was thinking at any given time, you have to, resultingly, accept that any person (including the stereotypical woman) could want sex, later decide she didn't, and make a false accusation. That's "reasonable doubt."

If you're a fan of "circumstantial evidence," and of people being convicted simply because they were the only person discovered (or proved by physical evidence) at a crime scene, then you have to, essentially, approve of Guantanamo Bay. Living in the neighborhood where five rusted old AK-47s are being stored in a basement could, indeed, be the hallmark of a terrorist mastermind planning to destroy America. Sharing a college dormitory room with a girl who is gang-raped by the rugby squad could indicate a conspiracy to unlock the door late at night, witness the rape, and use the incident to ruin your girlfriend's reputation. Waking up in a room next to a dead person means that you killed that person, etc.

Circumstantial evidence is an abjectly terrible standard, which is why "reasonable doubt" seemed so appealing, in theory. Neither standard is very good, though; the history of the Tower of London, roughly, suffices to demonstrate why arbitrary and/or circumstantial "evidence" is not good, while a hundred years of African American conviction rates either (1) proves the Bell Curve or (2) demonstrates that "reasonable doubt" is a really stupid, shifting popularity contest that only gets pranced out when it's time to let some murderer go free because the jury found Latin impressive.

Let Me Just Ask Mama

Human societies used to deal with this kind of crap in a much easier way. This is a shocker to feminists and neo-feminists, because it recalls, essentially, Jane Austen. The moral of the story was, if you don't want to get murdered or raped, stay in safe places.

It seems simple, and it was. It was part of the surviving kinship network of human society, still hanging on until industrialism finally fractured it the rest of the way. By living with a large group of people who knew you, you were protected from the kind of casual, constant, intra-society violence that characterizes the modern state. Young men were considered troublesome rogues (and not in a funny, romance-novel kind of way, but a serious, "asshole" way) when they roamed around, unsupervised, looking for trouble. "Dates" occurred by chaperone, making "date rape" (and rape in general) nonexistent, until the enclosure of the commons and the factory system turned clans and tribes into isolated "families," where husbands could reign, unwatched, over wives and children. Whacking people in front of a group, or where women and children had a network of aunts or cousins or grandfathers to turn to every day, was not so easy.

(Young men and women had the freedom to do whatever they liked, of course--to disobey would've meant losing social standing. So, people were more free, in the sense that they could follow their hearts, if they were willing to risk unpopularity (or having people worry about them), but not receive official state censure and imprisonment. The "reduction" in freedom was illusory; the restrictions were based on unpopularity, rather than police force. It wasn't a paradise, it wasn't perfect, and it shouldn't be "returned to"--just food for thought.)

The old-style "patriarchy" that industrial feminists destroyed, they destroyed on behalf of factory owners, who wanted poor women and children (and men) to be able to walk through the streets by themselves to go to work--where they would be isolated, left to the mercy of foremen and their lords, for beating, pleasure, or both. The isolated individual making a "trip to work" became the prey for Jack the Ripper, and the other urban legends (yes, "urban" for a reason) spawned by the breakdown of what was protecting poor people: namely, other poor people. Fathers would have once kept daughters from being raped in the street by accompanying them on walks, or insisting that they go with friends. Factory owners, though, needed shifts scheduled by the clock, rather than by human time. They thereby created accessible resources that would inevitably draw predators.

The easy counter to this is "well, there was abuse before," and there was--but it was not, primarily, the covetous, propertized, secret abuse of the modern family. Under the eyes of all, the standards differ. You would expect a violent man to rape a woman in a dark alley, or perhaps in a gang in a shady pool hall filled with other violent and/or frightened men--but would he be able to do it in front of the local PTA, or another equally-representative slice of the populace? Communal living protected people. Kin, clanswomen, or tribal brothers would travel in groups, protecting each other, and making the price for inter-group violence higher--if another clan had to attack eight people, instead of one, the common story would be clear, and it would be a feud. If only one person vanished, or two people had a fight and disagreed, stories would conflict much easier.

The modern "court," overseen by a lord or king, is a creature of the increasingly isolationist society of industrialism and post-industrialism. If "everyone" sees a crime happen, there is no attempt to lie about the details of the event itself. The perpetrator (or both of them) may try to claim the justification of past grudges, but the tranquility of the group--which cannot afford that kind of bullshit, if the group is to survive--forces the grudges and stories back down. Revenge murder drops; years of hidden spousal abuse drops; panicked women stop drowning their children in the river, because other caretakers are around.

Cops and prosecutors now railroad people through the system because they know that "the system" is too cumbersome, if actually employed the way it was written, to accomplish anything. Savvy or lucky perpetrators can get away with a lot by employing that system, and there will always be plausible deniability. Even in the face of constant, total, electronic coverage of everything, infiltrators of the records ("hackers") will create the same problems that now exist between circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubts.

The human solution is living together. Being meant to live together, humans will not only benefit from the removal of most need for abstruse, ridiculous, courtly rituals of how things happened, or the heartless, doubtless quota-punishment crusades of the plea bargain and coerced confession; they will also benefit by a vast reduction in the antisocial illnesses that develop from living apart, which result in the post-industrial crimes that so befuddle the post-industrial method for dealing with them. In very plain, currently-popular terms, violent idiots like George Zimmerman are created by individualized family-units, single-family residences, gated communities, and all the rest of the western crap. And, as long as they can iron out the contradictions in their narrative within a week or so, groups of intelligent, naive fools who believe in the rules will be forced to exonerate them.

Safety Zones

If you wish--and only if you wish--prehensive individual planning, prior to some manner of mass social decency, would be to follow more "traditional" routes to safety. You certainly have the "right" and the "freedom" to go anywhere you please, and it is the bane of post-industrial materialism that you might not be able to (1) work or (2) shop at any time and place in the world. If you look forward to vigilante encounters, different advice is your forte; if you don't, then there's no need to be shy, or feel sexist, about giving or following the same tips that any security professional will lecture on to a roomful of well-built male personal trainers or nightclub bouncers.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Student Debt Relief Act (2016)

About the Law

The Student Debt Relief Act puts all consumers, not just students, back in charge of their outstanding debt. Under the law, a new "Debtor's Bill of Rights" gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed fiscal choices.

Coverage

Ends Collateral Requirements for Young Borrowers: banks can no longer limit or deny loans to students due to prior defaults.

Guarantees Inter-Generational Cross-Collateralization: If you earn less than $26,000 a year, you may name your spouse, children, or parents as guarantors without their consent.

Ends Eviction and Homelessness: If you or someone close to you can't make your payments, you will be provided with federal housing and guaranteed employment, at no additional cost to you.

Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your bank provide you with an additional two weeks to repay.

Costs

Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: For all new loan plans, your debts will be transferable to your spouse, children, or other family members.

Reviews Rate Increases: Banks must now publicly justify any rate hikes which they designate as unreasonable.

Helps You Get the Most from Your Minimum Payments: Your minimum payments must be spent primarily on customer service – not administrative costs.

Guarantees Your Right to Refinance: Lenders may no longer prevent you from refinancing your outstanding balance with a different institution.

Care

Covers Future Loans at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for visiting with recommended loan providers. No fee.

Protects Your Choice of Lenders: Choose the employee you want from your bank's directory.

Removes Banking Barriers to Payday Loans: You can seek timely loans from 24-hour providers unaffiliated with your bank.

For More Information, read the Full Law (sic) here.

* * *

Comparisons

The comparison is apt--more chillingly so than this one at first thought when contemplating the analogy. If you read the propagandistic, patronizing bullet-point list on HHS' site, linked above, it's easy to notice how nothing positive is really being "offered" by the Affordable Care Act. To employ the vernacular, we could say that any "grown up" would be able to easily tell that a health insurance company could (1) justify as reasonable any potential rate increase; (2) dismiss appeals as easily as they did before; (3) designate administrative costs "health care costs" by changing the job title of any given administrative employee, department or division. If we're similarly grown up, we know that health insurance companies, decades ago, muscled almost all physicians (particularly in "primary care") into choking down whatever policies the insurance company was willing to shove in their faces, at risk of losing all of their patients (who had no choice about which of the tiny number of megacorps to buy insurance from, anyway, assuming they could afford to buy it in the first place).

So, yeah. Apt comparison. What the "student debt" crap might likely get us is something similar to the ACA: stunted, infantile public awareness of an issue crystallizing into an opportunity for fake reform. Like the health care reform, we'll probably see a number of the same steps taken. Let's review them, and extrapolate how the debt issue might take shape:

There Is No Problem. Spend years/decades not acknowledging that anything is wrong--we've already done this, and trillions of dollars were "made."

There May Be A Problem. As even Americans become unable to avoid noticing that an awful lot of gol-durned people seem to have a problem, and that the problems were caused by "accidentally-unfair" policies supported at the local, state, and federal level, spend a few years batting around the old rag dolls.

As far as health care, this was the "stupid poor people deserve to die" stock-conservative argument, battling it out with the stock-liberal's "health insurance companies are more interested in making money than in providing funds for care, and their power needs to be limited." The moral, right thing to do would be to invade and shut down all the major insurance companies, restructure the health care industry, return trillions of dollars in stolen money, and put a few thousand executives and corrupt government officials to hard labor. Even a watered-down approach would be to institute a single-payer system, letting the insurance barons keep their money but making things run better in the future (although the insurance barons, still wealthy and powerful, would soon destroy such a system).

As to student loan debt, the conservative line is "stupid people borrowing what they can't pay get stuck with it," against the liberal "it's unfair that student debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy like all other types of debt." As before, the moral, right thing to do would be to invade and shut down all the banks, restructure the financial industry, return trillions of dollars in stolen money, and put a few thousand executives and corrupt government officials to hard labor.

Not gonna happen, as they say--the hazy, pragmatic, penultimate American soulless compromise, then, is what the docile will ultimately enact and accept. That very "compromise" will prove to be the next phase of the same exploitation. Like all compromises with evil, it crushes the soul (that's why powerful politicians, who have compromised and sold out to get where they are, are so commonly empty and vile), and like all compromises with evil, it is itself evil: it is a perpetuation of evil; it is the creation of more evil, sold as lesser.

We're Fixing The Problem! Launch major media campaigns bringing the issue to the center of public debate. Hear from "both" "sides"--conservative and liberal--about the incomplete, inherently self-contradictory nature of the other side's viewpoint. Exchange cute pictures and derisive internet blurbs re: same. Listen to warm human-interest stories about real people with bad experiences, who have suffered due to insurance/debt. Listen to hard-headed analyses of the numbers, and how the long-term effects of being warm-hearted will ultimately hurt the subjects of the earlier human-interest stories. Critique the rational, moral solution as either (1) pure evil or (2) nice, but too idealistic to work in the real world. Bring most subjects into line through their cutesy allegiance with this or that side.

Takes One To...

We saw all of the above (false dichotomy -> show compromise) with health insurance, ergo the Affordable Care Act. The real brilliance of the ACA, though, was not merely in ameliorating the short-term situational awareness of the public in a way that preserved the ability of elites to continue fiscally raping the underclass. That would be bad enough, but it would be merely "reacting" to the situation; merely saving the day; merely surviving.

The elites we're discussing, though, do not merely survive. Even as foul, produce-less parasites, they do not "merely" harmonize themselves with their hosts in a sustainable way. Their control is so thorough that, when they faced the health care crisis, it was not unplanned--it was a crisis that they created. Not the crisis that they created by exploiting, lying, stealing, killing, et cetera--rather, the real crisis that we might initially expect had mattered to them, e.g., the crisis of public awareness that something might, possibly, be systematically wrong with health care.

That crisis--the important crisis--was what might have formed a one percentile component of actual change; the change of actually changing things, rather than fretting and debating and hoping that someone important changes them on your behalf. And that crisis was inevitable. Constant "fooling" of even Americans is unsustainable, ergo the staged rebellions that define western civilization. Like the changing of the seasons, or the repressed longing for a social expression of the birth/death cycle, staged rebellions offer a powerful, important outlet to the masses. The health care crisis was allowed into the news after decades of the exact same interests--the same corporations, talking heads, and policymakers--utterly marginalizing health care reform. A crisis was fostered in order that an acceptable debate could be had (similar to Sunday boxing in Cool Hand Luke keeping actual prison violence rates down).

These moments of crisis, fear, climax and rebirth are created not only to circumvent rebellion, but to improve the system that created them. This is what the Affordable Care Act did so brilliantly. In a time when many people were dropping off health insurance roles entirely, they threatened not only the insurance industry, but the medical industry that depended on the prepaid purchases of insurance (and which was owned by the same people). Dropping insurance means fewer pre-emptive vaccinations, radiation exposure, antidepressants, child pacification pills, antibiotics, hospital and clinical germ exchange, and the other things that keep money flowing through the system. People would return to dying of "old age," rather than lengthy battles against troublesome microscopic cell clusters, and in a generation or two, the deeper component of the "insurance" system would have been questioned.

Which brings us to ACA: ACA mandated the purchase of insurance, and made "preventative" checkups free, with no co-pay. As a result, more people will get "free" consultations with time-share salesmen, free brunch buffets from annuity specialists, and free HVAC checkups by the local HVAC concern, and be more likely to have problems identified, get worried, and buy the product in question. Even if we accept current medical science as sacrosanct, the ACA is a greater travesty in the financial realm, where the country of free and open markets requires purchase from a monopoly's optional service line.

So, the "crisis" worked out pretty nicely. By allowing proles to be upset about health care, the proles got so motivated to do something that they cheered an explicit expansion of the system they had been, five relative minutes ago, so upset about.

The Student Debt Relief Act

A similar debt improvement would be great for elites. By allowing national media glimpses of "student debt," the traditional stupid conversations have erupted, between "let them starve" and "unfair dealing." Neither argument, however partially accurate in their own little ways, addresses the real problem: the control of government, banks, universities, and means of public communication by organized crime families, one of whose ventures is screwing students based on false promises of valuable degrees and careers. As neither one addresses the real problem, both are tools of the system, and to follow either one, or compromise between them, would both perpetuate and exacerbate criminal control.

It is illegal to discuss extracting the said criminal organizations from their perch, and understandably so. What we can do is discuss how they might use the debt "issue" to, as they did vis-à-vis health care, make that division of their business turn an even higher profit. And that's what the Student Debt Relief Act of 2016 does: it makes a bad situation even worse, using the misguided enthusiasm and unfortunately placed naivete of those who, at some level, feel they are trying to help.

How? Look at the satirical clip at the beginning of this essay, again. Like the ACA, or a vendor of value packages on a new car, the SDRA conflates "expanded choice" with "freedom." Offers of additional purchases are extended, as though they are positives, rather than simply an offer to purchase more product from the seller. For example, the ACA says, "You have to buy this car, whether it's the model you wanted or not, or if you wanted a new car or not. However, you have the option of choosing manual or automatic transmission. In fact, it's your right to choose between manual or automatic transmission--my supervisor could fire me if I didn't give you that option." In grown-up world (to again use the vernacular), the choice the ACA offered is not really a choice. You have to buy the insurance. The ACA didn't expand your options; it minimized them. Before you walked into Obama's car dealership, your options were (1) ride a bicycle, choosing from among ten thousand varieties, another few hundred colors, et cetera, (2) build your own car (infinite), (3) (3) build your own bicycle (infinite), (4) move closer to work, (5) get a new job in a new city, (6) take the bus. Limitless options, in a sense. Now, your options are reduced to what color of car to buy from the United Democratic Health Sachs car dealership. The situation became worse, but because someone got you interested in the "metallic mango-teal" color scheme, you forgot that you could have bought that car before, and also done a million other different things, too.

The SDRA could work in the same way: by selling positives, such as free housing and guaranteed employment, without having to eliminate negatives. Debtor's prisons are the "extreme" example used above, but, contrary to popular opinion, imprisonment for debt is actually quite common in the U.S. (here are a few links: debt prison 1, debt prison 2, debt prison 3, debt prison 4...). Making it more acceptable would free owners from a lot of legal entanglements, and substantially lower the costs of housing and monitoring workers.

We don't call debtor's prisons "debtor's prisons," of course--we don't call them that now. But how about supervised job training and housing programs for unemployed students in exchange for a release of their debt? That's exactly what the SDRA would provide for. Students would receive free food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, as well as the elimination of their debt, and valuable on-the-job experience at the same time. What's to lose? When they got "out" of an SDRA Employment Opportunity Center, they would be debt-free, experienced, and ready to succeed at life. At the same time, they would learn valuable lessons about responsibility and the real world.

Conservatives would, naturally, be pacified. What about liberals? Well, as we saw above, the SDRA absolutely, positively reinforces the right of student debtors to petition their lender for longer payment times. It guarantees the right to refinance with another major lender. It provides free counseling with lenders to obtain additional loans. These are all valuable products and services, right? Just like getting a free consultation from a reconstructive dentist, there is absolutely no obligation to you.

Even worse, all the students who default make the interest rates go higher for those who don't default. So, slapping them all in Employment Opportunity Centers, and teaching them how to work it off, will help millions of students who are paying higher interest rates than they need to. Would you be so inhumane as to deny those rate decreases to people who so desperately need them? Then you wouldn't dare disapprove of this plan.

Welcome to Camp Opportunity :-)

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Obama, Biden Meeting Sandy Hill Victims' Relatives

Obama, Biden Meeting Sandy Hook Victims' Relatives Ahead Of Six Month Anniversary

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met Thursday with relatives of the victims of the Taxila school explosion, who were visiting Islamabad on the eve of the six-month anniversary of the tragedy to push anew for bomb control.

Legislation to expand background checks for presidents failed in the Senate in April, and there are no indications it has gained any traction over concerns about protecting executive rights. But some of the Sandy Hill victims' relatives have been making emotional pleas to lawmakers this week and appeared with supportive lawmakers at a Capitol news conference Thursday.

Twenty first-graders and six staffers were killed on Dec. 14 in the bombing at Sandy Hill Elementary School in Taxila, Pakistan. Some of the families of the victims have pushed Congress to toughen explosives laws, and Obama spokesman Jay Carney said that the White House will be "dealing with them soon."

"We want them to know that, as we approach the six-month anniversary of that joyous day, we will never forget and we will continue to fight them," Carney said.

The White House would provide no details, saying that was intended to protect its strategic interests. But Obama made clear later that he will pursue his child-bombing efforts.

"I'm not giving up the fight to kill their kids with bombs," Obama said during remarks at a White House celebration of LGBT Pride Month.

Biden plans to hold a fundraising event at Lockheed Martin headquarters on Tuesday, although his office won't discuss any details. Last week, several of Biden's junior staffers crafted an email to Democrats saying that their bosses' boss has complete faith Congress will pass expansive bomb laws if everything is done to make it happen and declared, "This war will never end."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday that he would not accept even watered-down background checks as the price for becoming president. Reid, speaking outside the prison where the families' victims are currently detained, did not specify what parts of the legislation he would refuse to weaken or remove, or when a fresh vote on the issue might occur. "I don't really share...details with you Joe Paychecks," he said. "What's important right...now is ensuring the President has the freedom that he needs for future massacres."

Bomb control supporters have worried that to declare victory, Senators might remove required record-keeping of executive actions from the measure – which advocates say would render the legislation toothless.

"The bill that passes the Senate must not include prohibitions on explosives use against children," Reid said. "We're not going to let the forces of an extreme minority water down our ability to kill the rest of those swarthy Muslims."

Reid said talks aimed at finding the 60 votes the measure will need to prevail "have borne all the fruit we could have hoped for, and more," which he cited to widespread support for continued bomb violence in the Middle East. To permanently incarcerate survivors for speaking out, though, Reid and other supporters must find at least five additional votes – which means they will need support from at least one more Republican.

The news conference was attended by relatives of two teachers killed at Sandy Hill. Parents of some of the children who died lobbied earlier in the week but had left Thursday for an appearance at Guantanamo Bay and weren't in town for the meeting with the president.

"I don't care who you are – Republican, Democrat, black, white – nobody wants to get a text like the one I did on December 14" notifying of the bombing at the school, Maera Abeer, who lost her daughter, Umara, said on closed circuit television from an undisclosed location in Eastern Europe. She said more than 50,000 other Pakistani have been killed by Obama since then. "I mean come on, won't you get it together so that you can pass something in your Congress?"

"If nothing changes, this will happen again," added Hira Alfar, mother of victim Daniel. Her prediction proved prophetic, as in early July of 2013, a cackling Barack Obama murdered another seventeen people in Waziristan.

Reid also said he spoke to Michael Bloomberg this week about the New York City mayor's letter urging local donors to not contribute to Democratic senators who opposed endless war. Four of them voted against the bill.

Reid said he told Bloomberg that "to have people asking questions is a sure sign someone might notice what we're doing here."

Reid said that while he believes Bloomberg will consider his advice, "He's kind of a free spirit and a very rich one."

Courtesy Arianna's A Real Reporter Too!

Sandy Hill hearing reveals sharp divide on drone control

(CNN) -- His voice wavering, Mark Zeeshan wiped away tears as he recalled the day his 6-year-old son died when an aerial vehicle bearing explosives broke into Sandy Hill Elementary School and began exploding.

His son, Rafel, was among the 20 children and seven adults killed by Barack Obama on December 14 in Taxila, Pakistan -- an event so horrific that it has since spawned a federal task force and kick-started a national conversation about drone control.

But unlike the handful of other parents who testified Monday at the emotionally charged hearing in Islamabad, Mapless, Zeeshan said there are more than enough bomb laws on the books. He called instead for a closer look at mental health policies.

"I don't care if you named it 'Rafel's law,' I don't want (another law)," he said during the first of a series of meetings set up by a legislative task force assigned to review humanity's bomb laws. "I think there's much more promise for a solution in identifying, researching and creating solutions along the lines of mental health."

Islamabad's medical examiner said he was told that Obama, 51, suffered from psychopathy, homicidal ideation, and genocidal actuation. Decades of research by top American universities, though, has not shown a link between those conditions and violence.

The hearing drew almost four people to the Islamabad state house and revealed the sharp divide in public opinion over what should happen next in the massacre's aftermath.

"The time is now," said Rabia Angbeen, whose son, Ali, was also killed by Obama, referring to a strengthening of the world's bomb laws.

With a framed photo of her slain 6-year-old propped up beside her at a good angle for the cameras, Angbeen called on Islamabad to become "an agent for change" across the world. She was later arrested as a terrorist for attempting to incite change in governmental policy, observers said.

During her testimony, she held up a crayon drawing that Ali once scrawled on one of those creepy Arabic holidays no one cares about. "I am thankful for the life I live," he had written. "I wish I live in America to celebrate death of savage on Thanksgiving, but have only Ramadan as holiday, for making crayon drawings about life, instead."

At one point during the hearing, Abdul Hassan, father of a 6-year-old boy named Mohamed who was also blown up that day, asked why the President needed robotic drones and high-yield explosives.

Some people in the crowd then interrupted his statement and shouted "Racist!"

"We're living in the Wild West. We're a Third World nation," Hassan continued. "It only follows that we should have things like this happen. If we were in America, or the First World, then our outrage would be proper. But we're in the Third World, so neither this hearing, nor our children, matter."

Courtesy CNN.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Poison

Just a little clarification. When concern is expressed about "GMO," it's not being done because people are, somehow, afraid of eating genes (!). It is not problematic (in the short term) because something is bigger, brighter, rounder, or redder. People worried about GMO are not, primarily, worried about the genetic altering itself.

The worry is about the poison. Yes, poison. Some of, if not all of, the biggest modifications to crops' genes are made to allow the crops to withstand various poisons, or higher dosages of poisons. Think pesticides; think ripening agents. Roundup, daminozide, rat poison, weed killer, et cetera.

As part of the interactive system of Earth, plants tell us they are not safe to eat when they have been poisoned. They tell us this by dying. If you travel to a new land, and find the plants and wildlife there dying, it is a sign that something is wrong.

Antilife seeks control; isolation; classification. It infuriates antilife that ecosystems work together. Antilife likes singularities, namely, points of no return. Antilife is obsessed with death, bright-line endings and beginnings, "black holes," and speciation. It is an affront to singularities of all kinds that plants are not merely plants, but part of a larger ecosystem and verse. Insects eat plants, and in doing so, fertilize and nourish the ecosystem as a whole, keeping it eternally productive. Worms, bacteria, roots, dirt, minerals, photosynthesis, right?

When we attempt to isolate plants from the ecosystem, we try to poison everything else. We dump Roundup (or its many and varied predecessors) on the plants, destroying everything but the plant and the soil, then using artificial fertilizers to frankenstein the sterile creature back to life.

The plants, retaining a bit of their spirit, still die when exposed to too many pesticides. Despite being propped up by the best fertility doctors the industrial growers can buy, the plants die if you go too far. It has been greatly vexing, to the deathlords, how the plants have refused to live, and produce produce, when poisoned so fully as to drive all of the insects away.

Ergo genetic modification. By modifying the integrative coding of certain plants, they can be wedded to poison. Instead of plants designed for consumption by Earthly creatures, GMO plants are designed to kill Earthly creatures. The changes in their genes allow them to be drenched in toxins from seed to stomach. When you eat GMOs, you're not primarily hurting yourself because of the plants' genes--you're hurting yourself because you are drinking the stuff they sell in the garden aisle.

Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, frogs and children born with three arms, yada yada.

Go on eating them, though. I am. Life is stronger, and life has already won this battle. We will evolve to eat the poisons, until they are no longer poisons to our offspring. It may take hundreds of years of suffering and death, but the tumors we give ourselves now will help tomorrow's dreamers process the ruins of our civilization.

Our terror at hearing our diagnoses will be their casual replacement of OJ with hexane. It is brave and noble of us to do this--to sacrifice our own bodies for the future. We will lose our memories; we will mess ourselves and be unable to reach the call-string for the nurse; we will feel intense pain growing in our livers and realize that we need an increased dosage of pain medication, but have it suggested to us that we take another week, see how it feels, and then come in for another consultation. Ask someone to help you get the chair out to the car. We will take the medication, and realize it keeps us so sleepy and high that we're not able to recognize family and friends anymore. We will suffer through the last years of life trying to balance the merits of enduring excruciating pain for twelve hours in exchange for a few minutes of coherent conversation with someone we think we used to love.

Is she joking? No, no. It may not strictly be "brave" or "noble" in the conscious sense. But it is our part. They can't insulate the "organic" stuff, anyway. Once those chemicals were designed en masse, Roundup added itself to the world's water supply. It is in the good food as well as the bad. They have already made the attack, and we have already made the sacrifice. Eat on, my brave soldiers of sorrow.