Are we afraid to fail?

I've been wondering for some time now, why Capitalism doesn't seem to work anymore.

John Huntsman, one time Ambassador to China, Governor of Utah, Morman, had two very interesting things to say today on Fareed Zakaria:

"Capitalism without failure, isn't capitalism."
and
"Our tax code is like a 1955 Chevy on a 21st century superhighway."

We don't seem to want to pay our bills as a nation, anymore. No secret in that. We seem to want to decrease our taxes to a point that we don't have money to work with. Republicans seem to be based upon that as a national agenda.

Mr. Huntsman thought we needed to break up the banks so they aren't too big to fail, and we need to make our tax code to work for everyone, big and small, across the board, and eliminate escapes for everyone, not just corporations. As part of a middle class that is shrinking exponentially in size over the last few decades, that last part is a little concerning. But theoretically, I get it. And at least he isn't following the Republican agenda of simply spewing inflammatory "doublespeak" (from "1984" by George Orwell), or "nonsense-speak", or "whatever-will-at-the-time- happen-to-spark-the- tiny-primal-brain-speak".

We're supposed to learn from our failures. Our greatest leaders and innovators all say that failure is what leads to success. But if we have institutions that are too big to fail, what does that portend? Big dumb institutions who get away with economic murder. Literally. I too had been afraid of these big institutions failing, but that wasn't the issue. How they were allowed to get so big they cannot be allowed to fail, is. Not to mention, what in the Hell do you think the monopoly laws were about?  Things just like this. But the issue isn't any longer, a monopoly is a single instance for where you can go for a certain product or service; now it is about too few out there supplying us, where the same kind of thing can happen. The "55 Chevy on the superhighway", issue.

Say, what happened to the days when being "Republican" was a good and noble thing? Being mostly Irish, I have a different perspective on what Republican means. Sorry, that just crossed my cerebral cortex. See, unlike many I see on the media today (Palin, Gingrich, Bachman, idiot placeholder #1, #2, etc.), I still have one.

My older brother was telling me yesterday how what my daughter is doing is a good thing for a musician. She is traveling the world performing music and paying for her travels with that income. Starting in Iceland, she's in Greece now, leaving for India as her next destination.

So my brother was saying that back in the days of famous musicians street performing and in small clubs, etc., they met all the right people to give their works substance. You work hard, your goal is your music, to entertain, you get direct access to people and input, and you are closely bound with your fellow performers and other performers of a like mind and environment.

Then once you "make it", you are guided by different principles, you are friends with all the wrong and different people and you don't have access to that vein of wonder you started with, that made you so great.

I think that must have a lot to do with our politics and that whole crowd, too. Because they seem have obviously lost something along the way. Intelligence? Sanity? Integrity?

But getting back to the banks being too big to fail, I think that is a very good point.

I wondered why that was happening, but never considered (or could figure out) how that could be happening. Deregulation? I keep hearing, "let the market guide things", but that is like saying, "let your five year old guide how he wants to live". Which any parent can tell you is an unbelievably stupid idea. You have to give structure, then within that framework, you let them run as free as possibly, but so they don't kill themselves or you. They aren't really free, they just feel like they are free. But even then sometimes, they throw a tantrum, they have a fit, and you deal with it, until it passes. Then in the end, you have maintained control and they go on their merry way, hopefully to grow to become good and happy world citizens.

Not what we've done with our financial institutions. They threw a fit from time to time and we backed down like little schoolyard cowards.

Have you noticed I've been seeing a lot of cowardly actions in our leaders and we the masses lately? We seem to be afraid of pissing off the banks, afraid of not making all the right decisions 100% of the time, regarding terrorists, and so on and on. With the terrorists, again it's like in the schoolyard, we're afraid to anger the bully or he might hurt us or give us a dirty look.

When really, if he attacks us, we need to beat the Hell out of him, and prove to him violence is a bad idea (we did), then give him a reason to not hate us (not so so much yet), then stop worrying about him (nope). You don't forget about him completely, maybe keep an eye out for his actions, listen to the grapevine, but you don't cover yourself in mattresses, and hire people to follow you around the rest of your life, turning him in to the authorities or beating the crap out of him if he sneezes, or locking his friends up, some of whom aren't his friends, either they just know him or maybe have never even met him. You can't freak out every time he looks at you.

See, those things would be cowardly. I've never seen the American Eagle, acting cowardly. Benjamin Franklin called the American Eagle a vulture and wanted the turkey to be the American bird, but he simply liked to eat, methinks. Even geniuses are wrong sometimes. He also said: "A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."

Gangs are built out of fear and grow in ignorance (of the compassion of the impact of their actions upon others, if nothing else). And bullies are basically cowards, who are so afraid of everything, they have to attack anything they can so they can feel more secure inside. Which are we?

One more thing, or two. George Washington said:

• No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.
• The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.

The point of all this is, we need not to be too big to fail. We need changes in our government to update us to modern times (the trouble there is, we are going to let these leaders alter our Constitution? That is a very terrifying prospect, regardless of how badly we need to modernize). We also need to get back to being brave, courageous, stand up types, polite but not afraid to be appropriately aggressive when necessary, and return to our ingenuity in finance, business, education, and general attitude. Where has our intellect gone these recent years? Seemingly, it's been replaced by fluff and nonsense.

We need to pay our bills and have the money to pay them with. We need to move forward with foresight and intelligence not governed by political fears of gaining, or losing, our job in Congress, or wherever. We all need to pull our weight and not expect to get gold delivered to us in buckets (CEOs, yes, I'm talking to you, and corporations and financial institutions in general).

We need to get our act together and stop being afraid of everything, expect we'll get hurt by other from time to time and not hide from it, and not be afraid of some hard work and difficulty in life from time to time. Otherwise, we have difficulty in life, all the time.

Especially, this is true of our national leaders. This is a great nation. We need great leaders. But we haven't been going along in any kind of fashion that would give us those great leaders. It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. It's going to hurt. But it's now, or when?

Weekend Wise Words

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

After this week and all the talk about the Government of the United States of America living quite a bit less up to its expectations on the topics of Posse Comitatus and other issues less important, but of just as much concern, as regards the direction of our current Administration, that of recent others and whatever is yet to come, I thought that a few quotes on government might be good. We may have the greatest experiment in democracy ever conceived, but as you will see below, that can all be lost in the twinkling of an eye, if the citizenry are not vigilant and outspoken.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
Thomas Jefferson


All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Ronald Reagan

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
George Washington

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
George Washington

Some day, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.
George Washington

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
George Washington

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries.
John Adams

When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more.
John Adams

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.
Benjamin Franklin

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
Benjamin Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
Benjamin Franklin

Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
Albert Einstein

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein

Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
George Bernard Shaw

If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau

It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is nor an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment.
Elie Wiesel

If we get a government that reflects more of what this country is really about, we can turn the century -- and the economy -- around.
Bella Abzug

To put it in a few words, the true malice of man appears only in the state and in the church, as institutions of gathering together, of recapitulation, of totalization.
Paul Ricoeur

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Edward R. Murrow

Jim and John - giving and recieving

It is the Season when it is good to think about things outside ourselves, as in giving, and receiving. When I was thinking about this, I remembered a situation going back to when I was in grade school. Our mother would usually give our hand-me-downs to charity, or family, or friends who could use them. It wasn't usually a big deal. People shared, helped out.

At some point she had gotten to know a widow who had about seven children and lived in our neighborhood.  Two of the boys were identical twins and were in my age and in my class at school. Let's call them Jim and John (not their real names), for the purposes of sharing these thoughts.

Honestly, Jim wasn't this bad, it just felt that way

Jim was a complete bully to me, I felt he was a real tough guy. I was scared of him, but I tried to not let it show. His brother John however, was the nicest guy ever. I was kind of small until I hit about 12th grade when I shot up a few inches to 6'2". So I got picked on a lot as a kid. It didn't help that I had a strong sense of fairness and spoke up at all the wrong (right) times, leading to getting beat up by someone (or some ones) typically picking on a smaller kid.

It was hard to tell the twins, Jim and John apart, but you could certainly tell by their attitude. I always knew the one who acted the nicest was John. I could never figure out why one was so nice and the other was so harsh. I mean, they were twins, right? So how does that work, that they are so different? Hey, I was a kid, what did I know. But then, I've known other identical twins who were so very much alike. The disparity with these two was stark. Jim wasn't a criminal or anything, he didn't punch me in the face every time he saw me, but it felt that way to me. He just didn't seem to like me and I couldn't figure out why.

Every time Jim picked on me, John would just stand by and not say a word.

I remember one time, our mom had us get all our clothes together that we couldn't wear any longer, mostly they were just too small for us. We'd get yelled at if we wore our clothes out. I got yelled at a lot, but mostly my clothes were in good repair. We put them all in bags and then headed over to the family who lived about three blocks away. When we got there the mom greeted us very warmly and we started bringing in bags of clothes. I felt really good about doing this. Then I saw Jim and John. Jim just stared. None of the kids really talked too much but there were busy checking out  the freebies. Most of them were pretty happy about the situation.

I didn't talk to either of the twins much because every interaction seemed to lead to feeling pretty uncomfortable. So it was days at least before I spoke to them again in the schoolyard. Again, Jim was his usual annoying self. John didn't say anything. This was about sixth grade. Mostly I avoided them whenever possible.

That next year we were in 7th grade at the Junior High. It was a much bigger school and one day I ran into John. We talked as we would when Jim wasn't around. He was friendly and I saw an opening so I had to ask.

"Hey, how come your brother is always so mean to me?"

"I don't know," he said, "he's just kind of like that. I never knew why he is that way. He just is."

"Well, you've always been a nice guy. I like you. I don't really not like Jim, he just doesn't seem to like me very much. But I've never done a thing to him."

"I know," John said, "I'm sorry about that."

"It's not your fault. I just can't figure it out. We even gave your family clothes and toys and stuff and your brothers and sisters seemed happy about it."

"Yeah, well I think that is part of the problem. We don't have a lot of money. Mom tries to make it as best she can but she doesn't earn much and there are a few of us. I think he is just embarrassed. He knows when he sees you, he may be wearing some of your old clothes. I couldn't care less, I mean, thanks, we need the clothes. But he finds it humiliating. And so, he wants to take it out on you."

"So my mom wants to do something nice for a family and I run the risk of getting beat up? What a drag." I replied.

I had noticed Jim wearing an old pair of my jeans one day and reflected on that for a minute. It was weird but he needed them worse than I did. I found it interesting that I always thought we didn't have any money. I thought we were poor. There were a few days we didn't have heat, or much food, but it never lasted that long. But here was another family half as "rich" as we were. My mom always told us how much we have to be thankful for, but when we were lacking, it seemed to me that we were poor.

'Yeah, sorry about that," John said. "I know you don't think bad of us, but for some reason it really bothers him." At that moment, I had the feeling that John was somehow smarter than Jim.

"Well, I don't think anything about it. I'm just glad we could help." John smiled and that was pretty much the end of it. We never spoke of it again and I think the Junior High and later High School were big enough that I never had a run in with Jim again.

In looking back on this, I feel good that we helped not only "Jim and John's" family but others, too. I always felt badly for Jim, though. I didn't like his being such a jerk, but I can appreciate his feelings. Having less than everyone else around you is simply no fun. Aside from the actuality of it, the social aspects can be even more painful. I can deal with being hungry at school, but I don't need anyone making fun of me about it.

I ran into that in another fashion some years later when I would always pay for a friend of mine, for us to do things, go bowling, watch a movie, whatever. It meant nothing to me until he said he couldn't do it anymore. I had a job in High School, he didn't. I liked his company, so what's the problem.

Many years later, the situation was reversed and another friend of mine was paying for us to do things together and I was the one that after a few times, complained about being a freeloader. Then he was the one to say he didn't care, it was no big deal, he made a lot more money than I did, and we were having fun, so what's the problem?

But now I felt there was a problem.

Another time, a friend tried to give me something and I had trouble accepting it. He told me that I was always giving other people things and that was all good and nice, but one also has to accept gifts in life, and not only give. If everyone only gave, no one would be there to receive, and it means as much in a way, to accept well intentioned gifts as it does to give. He actually said I shouldn't be greedy about giving. He put things in a perspective that got across to me. There can be a "Grace" in giving. But if we are going to be a Giver, we also need to be prepared to be Receiver. It was a strange though. But as much as it bothered me at the time, I had to acknowledge that he had a point. I was always getting the good feeling of giving; so how could I deny him that?

It was a humbling moment that changed me forever, even if just a little bit.

I've pretty much had to work hard for what I got out of life. I appreciate what I have and I appreciate the things I have gotten to do. Sometimes, during this season especially, it is a good idea to remember these things; to reflect on these thoughts, to dip into those past moments now frozen in time, and just spend a little while re-experiencing those times. Both good and bad.

Hopefully, it will make for a better overall satisfaction in your life. And maybe that can lead to making others feel better, too.

Governors ask Obama to Reschedule Cannabis

From the MPP:

GOVERNORS ASK OBAMA TO RESCHEDULE MARIJUANA

Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – On a press call this afternoon, Governor Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington announced that they have petitioned the federal government to change the schedule of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a move they claim will remove the conflict between federal drug laws and state laws that allow the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries or compassion centers. Currently, marijuana is listed as Schedule I by the Drug Enforcement Agency alongside heroin and LSD, which means that the federal government considers marijuana to have no accepted medical use."

Governor Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island

Thanks guys. Nice try and keep it up. But this continues to be ridiculous. The medical use of Cannabis has nothing to do with anything and it shouldn't. Is alcohol listed as an accepted medical use drug? Apparently. So if it is, then Cannabis should be. If it isn't then what are we talking about? I don't quite get it. Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug. Talk about Cannabis is about long term effects. Alcohol, kills people now, today, daily, by the hour though drunk driving, alcohol inspired violence, family abuse, on and on.

But that is all okay, because Cannabis is a vile deadly drug with no medical value regardless of how cancer victims feel. Right?

Perhaps we need a Governor who will just set up State run, State approved Cannabis distribution centers. "Bud Stores". Ignore the Federal Government as they are ignoring the people about this. You know, we have always been a country giving the minority acceptance and consideration and protection, or that's the theory anyway, African Americans might argue that point, and Mexicans, and Asians, Gays, and, well, never mind. Yet we persecute those who use a naturally growing substance that is far less than alcohol. It would actually make more sense to make alcohol illegal and legalize Cannabis.

Legal pot and illegal booze: direct crime would drop dramatically. ER visits would drop dramatically. Crimes of physical violence would drop. Yes, alcohol related illegal sales and distribution, indirect actions, would increase exponentially, but that's to be expected. We've seen prohibition. Yet, we keep trying to maintain the prohibition of Cannabis with the deluded stated belief that it is nothing like prohibition of alcohol. Hiding the figures, scheduling it as a drug as dangerous as LSD (its not, and neither is acid as dangerous as itself) and Heroin which is one of the top dangerous and addictive drugs, along with Meth, cocaine, and prescription drugs.

Why it matters whether Cannabis has any medical value, should have anything to do with its legality is unknown and obfuscated. If people don't drop dead of it, and they want it, how is that the government's business, unless it makes government and law enforcement bigger and more wasteful. Which is what it seems government is all about anymore. Waste and being irrational (see previous blog on the Posse Comitatus law).

Thank you Governors for being one of the few who are standing up and pointing out who is the problem (federal government) and trying to evoke change that makes sense.

The Marijuana Policy Project had a mixed reaction to the news:

"This is a good first step, in that it shows that politicians are catching up with the scientific consensus, which is that marijuana has medical value,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “If it succeeds, federal law will finally acknowledge that fact. Rescheduling marijuana, however, will not change the federal penalties for possessing, cultivating, or distributing medical marijuana. That is the change we really need. These governors should be insisting that the federal government allow them to run their medical marijuana operations the ways they see fit, which should include selling medical marijuana through state-licensed dispensaries.”

"Rhode Island passed a law mandating the creation of three compassion centers throughout the state prior to Gov. Chafee’s term, but Gov. Chafee failed to implement the law, citing fears of federal enforcement against compassion centers operators. Similar legislation was passed in Washington earlier this year, but significant portions of the bill were vetoed by Gov. Gregoire, including a plan to legally establish medical marijuana distribution centers. Both governors pointed to a series of threatening letters sent by U.S. attorneys suggesting that medical marijuana dispensaries could be targeted."

Also, MPP Endorses Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform:

"Last week, the Beckley Foundation announced the launch of the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform at the UK’s House of Lords. This project is made up of senior policy representatives from around the world. Together with the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which issued a damning report on current prohibition strategies earlier this year, the Initiative is taking important steps toward starting an international discussion on how to move beyond the failed current drug control system.

"MPP is proud to be a signatory to this initiative and will be doing everything we can to help spread the conversation on ending marijuana prohibition worldwide, as well as increasing pressure on the United States to reform their position on international drug treaties."

Special Edition: Posse Comitatus rescinded? Sort of.

Have you heard about:

S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] December 2, 2011?

What is going on in this country? This is kind of depressing. I keep hearing things like this. Freedoms disappearing. Civil unrest. Corporate greed, and the greed of those in our government. Makes me want to go back to my Wolfe Tones music and listen to Irish Republican music (which I am).

The Hacker group, Anonymous posted a video on December 3rd bringing this to the attention of many. In response to this bill, civil libertarians aren’t so happy. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it “denigrates the very foundations of this country.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.”

Uh, what?

You know, we have been running scared since 9/11. I can understand it in the beginning, for the first few months. I could be persuaded to understand it over the first few years (maybe). But it's been now how long? We just had the ten year anniversary. And we're still doing things as if we'd just been bitch slapped by a big bully in the schoolyard.

But to be accurate, we're still being scared after having blown the bully's brains out. What happened to John Wayne? Kicking some ass and taking names? But continuing our American way here at home, not suspending our rights in a vain attempt at going back to the days of McCarthyism.

Now that may not sound like me. I'm usually pretty level headed about things, even when it happens.

On the morning of 9/11, I was riding a ferry to work in Seattle. I'm divorced now, but my lovely wife at the time called me to tell me a plane had just flown into the World Trade Center. I said that it's possible it was an accident but you can't just fly a plane into a building on accident. While she was talking to me, the second plane hit the second tower. I commented to her then that we were technically in a state of war. People around me on the ferry gave me strange looks, probably thinking I was nuts.

But I didn't freak out. I wasn't "Terrorized". I was pissed off, angry at whomever had attacked us. All through the ensuing years since the event, I've been angry at people who think that killing especially innocent people, is some kind of just cause. Life, is a calculated risk. We calculate some risk for freedom. When we start giving up freedom for fake security (TSA, Homeland Security, locking our borders), then this isn't America any longer.

My view on that next day or two after 9/11 were that someone needed to be made accountable. We needed to wipe out who ever did that on our soil (we have). They didn't deserve to get credit for what they had done (they did), nor did they deserve to continue breathing air (they don't).

So we went to war with Iraq? Well, I guess this is where the John Wayne paradigm begins to break down.

Okayyyy... I'm still not sure why Iraq. But then, I'm not sure why we didn't kick Sadman Insane's ass out of office when he was defeated the first time by Bush Sr. I was incensed that we didn't go to Bagdad and take him from power. I'm still annoyed that we didn't push the Russians out of Berlin and Germany back at the end of WWII, when Patton said we should. But I wasn't born yet, and that is a moot point now. But look what not doing what we should do has cost us over the years.

We have the Posse Comitatus laws to protect our citizens from what has been done in country after country throughout history, which was that the government would impose martial law and use the military to put down the popular vote, voting done with action, and not poll booths. Military and citizens don't mix well.

We have been in that mood lately, the mood to rebel, to yell, to demand proper government. Have you noticed? The "Occupy" movements all over our country? People have been in that pre revolutionary mode for some time now. Our government is a bit afraid, no doubt. Good, makes for a healthy government, responsive to its citizens, to whom it SERVES (or should).

Corporations, the ones who SHOULD be afraid, aren't. For them it seems to be business as usual.

First of all, people have misunderstood what the Posse Comitatus law is all about and what has happened to it over the years. In the article about this on homelandsecurity.org (not homelandsecurity.gov),

The hacker group Anonymous, who have taken on the persona of the character from V for Vendetta, which is kind of cool and interesting, put out a video on December 3rd that a law has been passed commuting the Posse Comitatus law. I would take with a grain of salt, whatever Anonymous has to say. But I wouldn't ignore it. Because like a seller on eBay, they don't want to muck up their reputation, I'm sure. So something they are saying is most likely true.

What good they are now, is to point things out for us to look into. So look into it. Be afraid if necessary. But don't be afraid like our fat and rich leaders are, selling off our freedoms. We have had too many freedoms taking away by our increasingly PC, touchy feely culture, as it is. Add fear into that, fear of death, terrorism, loss of money, and you have a perfect storm for the end of our freedoms, period.

There is an article on Forbes about this: The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face. It says in part:

"If Obama does one thing for the remainder of his presidency let it be a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act – a law recently passed by the Senate currently which would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists."

Wired.com talks about this issue also: Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial.
Both these magazines are reputable. So there is something to this.

Here is the page for the bill, and here is the actual pdf of the bill; so make up your own mind. I'm not here to give you the answers. Find out for yourself, go to the source. Look it up. But don't just sit there and let it happen.

The full text from the Anonymous posting on YouTube on Dec 3, 2011

Dear brothers and sisters. Now is the time to open your eyes!

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

The National Defense Authorization Act is being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn't apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill, it essentially says it can apply to Americans "if we want it to.

Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

Even WIRED magazine was outraged at this bill, reporting:

Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial

...the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority."

The passage of this law is nothing less than an outright declaration of WAR against the American People by the military-connected power elite. If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime, the torture of Americans and even the "legitimate assassination" of U.S. citizens right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of the police state we've been warning you about, I hope you realize we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you have no rights whatsoever in America. — no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent, nothing.

The US senate does not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

Cruelty and injustice...intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now President in command Barack Obama. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness. Justice, and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek...then I ask you to stand beside one another, one year from November 5th, 2011, outside the gates of every court house of every city DEMANDING our rights!!

Together we stand against the injustice of our own Government.

We are anonymous.
We are Legion.
United as ONE.
Divided by zero.
We do not forgive Censorship.
We do not forget Oppression.
US SENATE...
Expect us!!

Music by: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Requiem

Church reverses decision to ban interacial relationships

First, let me say, I had no idea my first three days this were would be blogs about religion. Yesterday was just because of some research I was doing and I find Angels in Horror movies kind of cool. Scary as all Hell, but still cool.

A church reversed its decision to ban interacial relationships in their congregation. Well, that's good news, isn't it?

I mean, it's good for a church to see the error of their ways and grow to become enlightened. But I'm not sure I really care; I mean, they shouldn't have been against it to begin with. It seems to me to be fundamental that a religion, a church, be enlightened enough to have known what to do in the first place.

Then again, Religion and hypocracy seem to go hand in hand.

Every religious person I've ever run into has claimed to believe in their religion and follow its tenets as ascribed in their Good Book be it the Bible, Koran, or whatever. But because these books are so contradictory, in believing in them you have to ignore certain parts, leaving you to do what you choose is good, and to not do what you choose is bad; but then you are still choosing to go against your religion. In a way it doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you rational. Yet still, it does bring up a problem with the religion, something its followers either refuse to see, or simply can't. So how is that a religion?

They're really just another social club. Right? And this really annoys me. I will agree that some churches are better than others. But taken overall, I'm not real impressed with any of them. When you take on the call that you are the speaker for a Supreme Being, for a God, you're taking on quite a mouthful and you really need to live up to it. But I don't think any of them do. They all believe rather crazy stuff. Not just bigger than life stuff, but at times patently ridiculous stuff. And typically at major points in the religion.

Many will point out that we are all blindly finding our way through life, but I'm not so sure I agree with that, not when it comes to religion. They are not, and should be, held to a higher standard than anyone else. Yet, it is not like that. We cut them slack, give them breaks. Some religions even make insane claims like the world is going to end on so and so day, then it doesn't. Yet people stay with that church? Isn't that insane? At very least, delusional?

If they are dealing with God, the Supreme Being, shouldn't God know what is right and maybe, I don't know, let his people know?

I've always wondered how, if religion is the worship of a Supreme Being, why wouldn't that God want the people doing the following to get it right? How about getting it right the first time? What would it matter if Human rights weren't the Zeitgeist of the times, but simply the way it is and should be. So, shouldn't the Churches, being synonymous with religion, have been the ones professing what is right since the beginning of time? I've heard all the arguments to explain all this off, and at some point you just have to say, no, wait a minute. Okay? THINK, use your mind, that brilliant thing your God supposedly gave to you to, I don't know, use?

Shouldn't these churches have been the ones who said all along, that things we now believe in these modern times, things that are being generally accepted all through the wide world of all Humanity, shouldn't those things have been taught and professed as so, from day one by any church who has the ear of God? How is it "God's Word", is wrong so often and yet no one bats an eye over it?

And as a friend of mine on the phone just now pointed out, this also goes for sexual orientation, AIDS awareness, or any negative professed behavior from any church or group. Churches shouldn't be teaching negatives, they should be teaching positives. So, what's that about? Prejudice should be what a Church teaches you out of not into. Yet Churches the world over, through history have been prejudiced institutions.

We have seen time and again over history that religion pretty much follows what the general beliefs of the time (and location) are. Not the transcendental reality of a species, but a geocentric reality, or an ethnocentric one. It makes it look like their God is merely a local supreme being, merely to a region: Europe, or the Middle East, Mesopotamia, India, etc.

Wouldn't a God want those followers and worshipers (which is an entirely different issue I won't bother with here and now) to believe and work today through enlightenment of how they should be in the end, not how they should be right then. Otherwise, it makes no sense, does it? It has no realism; it's all guessing on the worshiper's part. And destined to fail.

I would consider the mass murders of the Middle Ages as failure. Successes simply pale in comparison and people always want to ignore all the travesties for the positive side. Kind of like rationalizing their beliefs so they can continue believing in nonsense. Which in Human endeavors is okay. But not in the realm of God.

You know, as a God, an all powerful super Being, I'd find some way to get that information to my people, as My worshipers. I'd give them enough so it wasn't such a crap shoot, leading to splintering and argumentation; if that's even possible with Humans. And I think an all powerful God could figure that one out. Yet, to date, that is not the case.

Discourse is good, but what has happened has been a horrible cock-up by any number of Supreme Beings. I might, as a God, give my people just enough so they have to have some Faith, though I'm still not so sure why that is so important. And if I created them all, why aren't "My People" all people? At least all Good People? I certainly wouldn't give them so little that what has happened over history has not only happened, but has repeated itself time and again.

That brings us back to churches simply being religiously oriented social groups; groups who really don't deserve their tax free status, unless they are doing something physically useful to the common and public good.

After all, if the Elks club, or the Eagles, or FreeMasons for that matter, have to be taxed, why shouldn't the Synagogues, Catholic churches, Islamic Mosques, and all the others? There is a tax free status that is available to any qualifying, but it should be qualification to simply call yourself a Church, or religion. Especially some of the newer religions, some of which have seemingly been set up on a lark or for the purpose of freedom from paying taxes. Or the nut jobs who anyone can see are simply full of religious crap.

This country offers freedom of religion. And that's fine, I think everyone should have freedom to their own personal delusions, or demons. It was a good reason at the time for supporting Human rights and freedom. But then we also had slavery brought in, supported and continued for far more years than was reasonable and extended up into the 1960s until they demanded their rights and finally got them. So, why does the Bible mention slavery and not condemn it? You can't be gay, but you can own another Human being? Come on.

Maybe we should drop that "In God We Trust" thing. Because I don't have a lot of faith or trust in God, not from what I've seen on Earth and read about what has happened over time. Or how badly God's representatives have acted throughout history. I don't see a problem with believing in an ideal of trusting in having and holding dear the concept of a perfect being, but that isn't some disconnected myth but rather an ideal to hold oneself up to try and imitate in an attempt to always try and better one self. But I don't see where religion has any real need in that effort whatsoever.

Basically, we're a bunch of hypocrites. Shouldn't we at some point, and now is as good as any, start trying not to be? Woody Allen in one of his films, when a friend accused him of modeling himself after God, in being so perfect he wouldn't have an affair; Woody responded, "Who should I model myself after? I figured God was a pretty good model to follow." But maybe not? Simply too much negative baggage there.

Maybe now is a good time to reconsider, and do something about it.

Johnny Depp's new blasphemous Jesus song. Um, Really?

"One day, Johnny Depp and his cronies will face the judgment of our Lord and they will burn in hell for this filth." What's this all about? Read on....

Why are Christian groups are saying Johnny Depp is being blasphemous? Because the talented and reknowned actor is in a new song, "Jesus Stag Night Club", off British band, Babybird's new album, "The Pleasures Of Self Destruction".

Apparently Depp has been associated with this band for a while now going back to about 2004, including cameos on recordings and directing some of their videos.

The song starts out: "Saw a man in a bar with his hair like a lady/ Bloody thorns round his ear like he was a crazy/ He had holes in his hands and a cross for a spine/ Crushed a berry in his Perrier and called it wine."

Babybird about to burn in Hell

The song goes on about a bachelor party where the Jesus look alike they hire gets trashed and passes out at a strip bar, later to find, he's the real Jesus (for full lyrics). Or is he? It goes on:

"Saw a man lying on the floor beaten up/ He had a fish finger sandwich and a yellow M coffee cup/ I bent down drunk and tried to pick him up/ But when I turned around I could see it was Jesus."

One could take that to mean it's the real Jesus. But it's cleverly ambiguous. He could be referring to the "Jesus" they were partying with, or the Historical Jesus. But I would argue that is not what it means at all, people just want to claim that's what it means because it fits their agenda.

If I went out with a Jesus look a like, I'd start calling him Jesus too. I mean, if he were dressed as Gandhi, I'd call him Gandhi, just to be funny. In fact, I was recently at ZomBcon in Seattle and there was a Jesus lookalike walking around. Actually, a Zombie Jesus (is it appropriate to capitalize the Zombie if we're talking about Jesus?). Sid Haig, the scary murderous clown character, Captain Spaulding (an homage I'm sure to Groucho Marx as Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding in Animal Crackers) from the Rob Zombie flick "House of 1,000 Corpses", was sitting with Tom Savini and another guy, in the bar restaurant where I was getting something to eat. I look up, and I see Zombie Jesus blessing the mad murdering clown. I had to do a double take. Surreal. Priceless. Moments like that are hard to come by.

The thing is, there was no thought of blasphemy in the Zombie Jesus' demeanor, or intent. I spoke with him later and he was a very nice guy, who played in a rock band. It was just his sense of humor. So what, we should stone him? Put him to death, as they would have even a hundred years ago, or perhaps still in some places in the world? Screw that. If you can't laugh at it, or find humor in it, or use it as a way to think out side your normal little life box, then at least be tolerant of it. Because that is learning Faith, and patience. It's easy to punch someone because they offend you. Turn the other cheek (yeah, I know, Christians are never going to live that one down).

So Johnny, "singing" with this British band, Babybird, is controversial, indeed. But he is an actor and an artist and that is what they do, push our limits. But I kind of liked the song. It's got a good beat, you can (almost) dance to it, I'll give it an eight out of ten, Mr. Clark.

But some groups are calling it blasphemous. Guess who?

According to E-Online:

"Lee Douglas, spokesman for the Christian Coalition, has already called for the song, currently vying to be the traditionally all-important No. 1 single on the U.K. on Christmas Day, to be pulled from British radio and called recording the tune tantamount to "blasphemy."

"I'm sure he thinks he's being very funny, but he's simply a disgrace," Douglas told the U.K.'s Daily Star of Depp's participation in the song. "One day, Johnny Depp and his cronies will face the judgment of our Lord and they will burn in hell for this filth."

"A spokesperson for Focus on the Family released similarly damning statements."

Well, I suppose it's understandable. But let's take a closer look....

People should really reconsider blasphemy being relevant only within their own tribe. If you hold a belief and you trash it in your own group, then that's blasphemous. But if someone outside your group does it, then how are they held accountable? It is after all, your belief. It seems to me you would be giving them some kind of power over you in that regard. So, why even allow that?

Religions especially, need to learn to live and let live. Regardless. If he were coming to your church and doing it, or playing the song outside your home like John Cusak in "Say Anything", then I could understand it. But we live in a multicultural world, were we have to learn to put up with things or we simply won't be able to get along. And it's only going to get worse. Certainly you should stand up for what you believe in, but there is a place and time. And most of what I see people standing up for anymore is just making noise, posturing, and not serving much purpose.

Faith among the faithless is a far stronger Faith than that among the Faithful. Jesus after all, didn't hang around the Faithful all the time, hiding from the world, from the degenerates, the sinful. He got out among those hurting, sad, pathetic, even the criminal, trying to help them. I don't think he was so much "saving them", as he was trying to help them, though. And that is an important thing that Christians, and all missionaries everywhere should listen to. You don't help people to convert them. You help them. If they convert, you did your job and got a bonus out of it. To go out and try to convert is self-serving, vain and prideful.

But blasphemous? A song? By a guy that isn't a "believer"? Perhaps, we should reconsider how we view what is blasphemous? This world continues to get smallerf every day, and we need more ways of being tolerant with one another. Otherwise, we're going to be living one day in a murderous and very deadly environment.

And religion will have been one of the main catalysts to have gotten us there.