Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Minority Report in America: why it is dangerous to have a different viewpoint than the one approved by the State.

Washington Post

From the article:
"Police —acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional —took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime..."

"A judge ordered Raub detained for another month, Rutherford executive director John Whitehead said..."

"Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency."

"'We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts,' she said. 'Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints....'"

"Col. Theirry Depuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state’s emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous."

My perspective:

1. Some may say that he wasn't arrested, but that is of little consequence for this man was clearly seized.

2. The fact that he wasn't charged with a crime may be seen as a good thing by those who would see this as merely a common sense measure to keep people safe from 'unstable' or 'crazy' people. However, the fact that someone can be seized without a warrant and held for a month in a psych hospital without a single charge (and for merely posting opinions on a social media site), should frighten everyone. Apparently, we now live in the world of pre-crime where the state cab declare that you are a criminal for merely disagreeing with them.

Even if he said some outlandish things, he has done nothing to warrant a seizure nor a detention. Furthermore, to do so for admittedly no crime (no harm to another person or a persons property) is the most glaring disregard of one's natural right to their liberty and constitutional right to their free speech.

3. Using the fear of the violence of recent mass shootings to justify violence perpetrated by the state is not only logically incoherent, it is down right scary. If the terrorists hate us for our freedom and wish to take it away, then how can the solution be allowing a bunch of domestic terrorists in suits (aka the state) to strip us of those very freedoms?

Also, it is right that we should be mindful of what people say, and to "pay attention to complaints," but paying attention does not mean violating the very rights of people the government was instituted to protect. To observe his posts and possibly visit him in a friendly and truely inquisitive fashion would have been alright, but to lock him up (and likely pump him full of unnecessary and harmful psychotropic drugs) for a month because he is fearful of the growing government power and threat to individual rights (apparently, rightfully so) is not just ridiculous, it is downright soviet; it is tyranny.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Paul Ryan, seriously?...ahem, Obama seriously?

"But the Obama campaign recognized, correctly, that Ryan's positioning of himself as the point man on behalf of an austerity that would remake America as a dramatically weaker and more dysfunctional country makes him the most vulnerable of prominent Republicans.

Ryan scares people who live outside the "bubble" of a modern conservative movement that thinks the wealthiest country in the world is "broke" and that Ayn Rand is an literary and economic seer.

The House Budget Committee chairman imagines himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about debts and deficits, the unforgiving foe of social spending who would gladly sacrifice Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the altar of debt reduction. Ryan has branded himself well within Republican circles, so well that he has parlayed himself into contention for the vice presidential nod. To get that nomination, however, Ryan must count on the prospect that the party that takes as its symbol the memory-rich elephant will suddenly suffer a spell of forgetfulness. That's because the Republican congressman from Wisconsin, for all his bluster, is anything but a consistent advocate for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. He is, in fact, a hypocrite,

Or, to be more precise, a hypocritical big spender - at least when Wall Street, the insurance industry and the military-industrial complex call.

Ryan has been a steady voter for unwise bailouts of big banks, unfunded mandates and unnecessary wars. Few members of Congress have run up such very big tabs while doing so little to figure out how to pay the piper. How has Ryan gotten away with his fool-most-of-the-people-most-of-the-time politics?"

-- excerpt from "Paul Ryan? Seriously?" By John Nichols, Common Dreams

My perspective:

This is a confounding analysis, for it ignores the moral ideal of the primacy of the individual, scoffs at the idea that we, yes the almighty U.S., are subject to the same laws of economics as the rest of the world (from the largest nations to the smallest of families, down to an individual's pocketbook), and ridicules the notion that we are heading down a government led fiscal path to the same dead end that Greece and the Eurozone are experiencing (the same to which all nations/political unions throughout history have ultimately succumb).

Make no mistake, I agree that Ryan is a hypocrite, but no less than any other politician, especially Obama/Biden. But what really irks me is that this stinging analysis is all used as a way to bash the republican candidates and in turn support Obama. Yet, Obama pushed for bailout after bailout. Encouraged monetary policies like QE 1, QE 2, and more. He threw money at sham business plans (I.e. Solyndra, G.M.), and now in his arrogance, thinking that those demonstrable failures worked so well, he is calling for bailing out all industries (at least the industries and companies within them that he likes or that throws money at his campaign). He kept us engaged in foreign wars (and gitmo open), and he got us involved in even more wars--unilaterally, with no concern for the consent of the people, or approval of congress. He is involving our service men and women in foreign conflicts for the sole purpose of political power grabs, and supporting the regimes he likes. He fights Al Qaeda in afganistan and supports them in Libya and now Syria. Ohh, and if Bush spying on Americans was so bad, I guess it's quite alright that Obama assassinated an American citizen...(sure he was a terrorist, but then again so are those who are "reverent of individual liberty," "anti-global," or "suspicious of centralized federal authority" to quote Obama's DHS).

From the article:
"The House Budget Committee chairman imagines himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about debts and deficits..." And obama doesn't imagine himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about the dangers of budget cuts and limited government?

I am not saying this means we should turn to Romney or Ryan as our savior. Actually, i am calling for quite another thing. I am saying that we must stop looking to fallen man to be our savior. The right wants corporate welfare and and their own brand of unadmitted soft socialism. The left wants a dependent class, and the state as the supreme being sovereign above all. Both sides of the isle are fascist in the textbook definition of the term.

if both sides are such obvious and demonstrable hypocrites, then why do we keep lining up on the battle lines that they have drawn, encouraging us to take their sides and support them at the expense of our honor and honesty? We are pushed into a world of false choices. We are given a binary set of options and it is in neither that the answers can be found. Why keep defending or supporting any of these power hungry narcissists?

It is pure folly to point out special interests in one side as if they don't exist in the other. This is why our system is so broken today, no one can take anyone seriously anymore. The 'debate' has devolved into schoolyard arguments devoid of logic or self-application of the principles we claim to espouse.

The only way forward is to recognize these inherent faults of any system built on power hungry men. Does Romney want power? sure he does. but can anyone honestly say that Obama doesn't love the power he has or hasn't used it for his own purposes or to aid his special interests? Just because we can point to some faults in Romney doesn't mean that we should hail Obama or praise him blindly. If we are honest seekers of truth, and truly people that desire justice, and individuals who want to be loved and live out love, then we must look for those same faults in every man. For it is not out of a label or a specific party platform that these faults arise; all faults find their source in the heart of man, and it is there we must look and do so indiscriminately.

**disclaimer** I am not a republican, democrat, or affiliated with any other political party. I am a free individual and a free thinker. I pursue truth and desire to live in peace with all regardless of their personal lifestyle. I believe that force/violence/coercion/aggression is evil when wielded by one person or a group of people (even if we call them our leaders,'representatives,' or the state). I put my faith not in man, But in God and his divine laws, yet i force no man to live as I believe I ought to live. I only ask that others respect my individual rights to life, liberty,and property, as I respect theirs. I believe that only through mutual consent may one be bound to and contract, scheme, or policy. And I believe as a moral truism that voluntarism is always superior to coercion.

If we all started truly respecting one another's rights and maintaining respect for one another's opinions, we could all get along much better than we do currently, and maybe then real progress could be made--instead of constantly meandering back and forth between the popular principles of the day.

That is all.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Female vs. Male chauvinism? Or simply human nature?

Janet Napolitano-run Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs, federal discrimination lawsuit charges - Daily News

It doesn't take a genius to see that women, when in places of authority, are just as apt to abuse their authority as men. To say otherwise would be sexist.

I don't see chauvinism as a distinctive male trait, but as a distinctive human trait. It is a defect flowing logically from the fallen and sinful nature of humans.

Just as racism can be and is committed by members of all races, bigotry and subjugation are able to be committed by all humans, both male and female.

What makes this phenomenon worse is the escalating boomerang effect inherent when forgiveness is scoffed at as weakness in favor of vindictive retaliation. Because women have been the victim of subjugation so many times, it is completely understandable that, given the opportunity, they would like to give men a taste of their own evil behavior. But as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

Thus, let this isolated example be used not as ammunition in battle of the sexes, but as a point of enlightenment and reconciliation.

Men, understand your faults and own them. Don't attempt to justify treating women as less of a person than your golf buddies.

Women, don't fall into the trap of hypocrisy of pointing out a fault in others and using it as justification for your own practice of it. For, in doing so, you convict yourself of the same sin for which you now persecute others for practicing when it should be you most of all that understand how it feels to be on the receiving end.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Problem Solvers: A Better Way to Settle Disputes

Here is a link to a fantastic article discussing the benefits of the collaborative law process. Interestingly, it looks quite similar to the processes that brought about what we know today as the Common Law. Adversarial systems seem rather perverse as means to achieve the ends of order, justice, peace, and domestic tranquility, don't you think?

This paragraph from the article is a good summation of why this process is more effective at reaching the aforementioned ends:

"The collaborative process minimizes stress on the attorneys as well. Meetings in the process are scheduled between the parties and not subject to the court calendar. Attorneys are not required to browbeat their clients to agree to a settlement that a judge has recommended. The attorneys are not pitted against each other, and the resolution is not viewed as a win for one side and a loss for the other. Instead, the resolution addresses the issues important to each client in a manner acceptable to each. Each party also fully understands the responsibilities of the resolution and is more likely to adhere to and carry out future obligations. The parties are happier with the results and more satisfied with their lawyers, because they have reached an agreement in a process in which they participated."

Monday, December 26, 2011

Colonialism is alive and well in the Islamist ideology

"A message to the world, especially colonialist powers..." read a headline on the Drudge Report today. Unfortunately, the link was broken and so we are left to ponder exactly the context of this statement; however, for my purposes, it is of little importance. Regardless of the message that Iran and Islamists desire to spread, one major flaw lies within their propaganda: Islam IS and always has been colonialist. Although many Muslims would take offense at this, especially those in the middle-east and Asia, how is their goal of bringing about the rule of Shari'a across the entire globe (global caliphate) any different than the 'other' colonial pursuits?

In a more ironic observation, how is it that Islamists cry foul at colonialism at all when they were the first real colonialists? Although Western colonialism is more prevalent in the history books, it was the Islamists that pioneered the practice--i.e. Islamic conquests across the middle-east, Africa, and even southern Europe to name a few. Before the Crusades or Western Colonialism ever entered the history books, Muslims were already invading, overthrowing, and erecting their own socio-political structures. Sure, they allowed the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) to remain in the land and continue to practice their religions, but only by paying taxes to their Muslim rulers and becoming second class citizens (dhimmis).

All this quote represents is a rhetorical tool; a subversive discourse in true Focaultian fashion. Don't deny that the West practiced colonialism (and in some ways still does), but don't allow the past sins of one culture to validate and justify the practicing of the same sin in another. The answer is not to be found in some political system or organization, in west or in east. The answer is to disregard the desire to assert power over your fellow man and to live in peace with one another by desiring liberty for all.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Are these law makers high?

"'The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,' said Melinda Haag, one of California's U.S. Attorneys, at a DOJ press conference on October 11, 2011."

This statement exposes the economic ignorance of those in the federal government. First off, how are business to function without making a profit? As John Mackey said profit to a business is like air to a human. One needs to breath in order to survive, but that is not the reason for one's existence.

Of course, the government folk will say that they are not against these people making a profit, just not obscene profits. So their solution is to put these 'profiteers' out of business so that neither compassion nor profit can be realized. And in the absence of these legal entities, illegal enterprises will spring up to supply the demand for this want (and in the legitimate cases, a need). These illegal enterprises are also known as drug dealers. You know, those people that care only about profit and obscene ones at that.

We can keep trying to repress the individual while wasting our wealth on enforcement programs than have never worked while they curtail our liberties or we can allow this industry to exist in society. It will exist regardless, might as well have it exist in the way that makes money and doesn't kill people or destroy their futures in the process.

Saying drugs ruin people's lives is nothing more than a guess--one who've assumes that ex-users can't turn their lives around. But when we have the policies we do now it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Did Somebody Say Monopoly? (Part Deux)

"The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday to begin taking public comments on three different paths for regulating broadband. That includes a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, to define broadband access as a telecommunications service subject to 'common carrier' obligations to treat all traffic equally.

Genachowski's proposal is a response to a federal appeals court ruling that has cast doubt on the agency's authority over broadband under its existing regulatory framework.

The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies, which say it would ensure the FCC can prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to determine what subscribers can do online.

"There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

From MyWay news. entire article here.

My Perspective:

Aside from the fact that we shouldn't even have an FCC, let alone one with any control over content, It is crazy to think that a governing body designed to manage limited resources (Radio Bandwidth) should be allowed to extend their power over the only resource on Earth that will never suffer from the problem of scarcity: The Internet.

The internet is quiet honestly the best invention for the common man. It is an infinitely expansive entity that can be accessed and added to by all. The government claims that they worry about service providers controlling what content people can and cannot access, and of course, they use the buzz word of discrimination.

This is obviously a massive case of projection and a red herring, for it is only government that can completely cut off access to content. If a service provider chooses to block certain content (i.e. a christian based web service that does not allow pornography or access to homosexual sites) then a person has the ability to go elsewhere until he/she is satisfied with the service. On the other hand, when the government has the power to control content, only what the government deems appropriate will be allowed. Under this scenario, anyone who seeks content that is not government approved will find him/herself on a wild goose chase at best and/or under indictment at worst.

In a truly free market, any service that is desired and not yet provided for is a de facto opportunity to create a new service and wealth. ISP's will be directed by market forces to provide that which is desired, or else they will risk loosing customers to a competitor and thus lose profit, which could ultimately drive them out of business.

This leads to another interesting observation. "The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies...[through the] Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

Isn't it odd that in a world of greedy corporations who hate onerous regulations we find some of the biggest names in the game coming out to support more government power.

This is classic cronyism. Obviously these companies are already established and have a huge customer base. Obviously they provide a good service devoid of the problems they claim to be concerned about (problems that don't actually exist in reality, only in the minds of government bureaucrats). Yet they claim that we need this government protection. My question is, "from who?"

If these companies believe in the new government power to keep content open and neutral, then why wouldn't they do it themselves? the answer is, they will. And if "We the People" are truly outraged over content control by our ISP then wouldn't this drive us to switch providers, thus bettering the bottom line of the companies in the Open Internet Coalition? Yes, it would. But they aren't concerned about their own behavior, and they are certainly not concerned about taking business from sub-par companies. What they are really concerned about is possible new upstarts and increased competition, and they see this new government power as a way to stymie competition.

these Big Businesses are already working hand in hand with the Gov. to get this new power passed into law. If they can do that then it is entirely conceivable that they can and will use their lobbying power to make rules that protect their interests at the expense of you the consumer and free-person. (Don't believe me, check out what happened during the New Deal and how large established businesses used the NRA - National Recovery Act - to prop themselves up while using the rules, which they created, to keep their smaller competitors down).

These Big Businesses are using the government to protect their corner on the internet market. With increased regulation, it will be harder for new and small companies to compete against the established Big companies. "Did somebody say Monopoly?"

Share on Facebook