What've you been doing?
Hey! Hey! Hey! It's like being stoned!
Where are you when the sun go down? So far away from me.
So far I just can't see. Money for nothing?
Where can you get chicks for free?
I can't live with or without you? Did U2 really sing that?
First time ripper here. Got it going on. Yep! Got it going on.
Been Rippin'
What've you been doing.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Complicity
Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or crime. With emphasis on the "involvement as an accomplice" portion of the definition, I would say without hesitation that most of the popular major media outlets, and you know who those outlets are, without doubt are engaging in complicit behaviour when they publish "news" stories that somehow contribute to the growing paradigm that citizen is an antiquated term that has been superseded by a more "progressive" dismissive as "the masses."
The individual is dead and really exists only as a small part of a greater whole, whose welfare is determined by self appointed philosopher kings, known otherwise by such terms as Senator, Congressman, Czar and President. City Councilman, Mayor and County Sheriff are soon to be added to the known as also list, you just wait.
Just pick up a newspaper, if there are any still being published where you live, and read a few of the stories. Find one where the government is somehow involved and think about how the role of the government is presented in the story and how minimal the role of the ordinary citizen is portrayed, if at all. Now think to yourself how the portrayal of government squares with the idea that our "elected officials" are our servants.
Like in the Allstate Insurance commercial: Confused? Don't be. That is the paradigm I speak of, where government is everything and we are nothing. It is the paradigm that the popular major media outlets have been complicit in supporting for decades. It is the paradigm they want you to become comfortable with. It is the paradigm that will be used to enslave you and your family, your neighbors and friends. In the end, government will be the Queen and We, the people, will merely be worker ants.
Complicity: Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or crime. But the good news is, all the reporters and talking heads who helped bring about the great ant mound will also be worker ants too. Not even they will be spared the disgrace, and in the great crime of enslaving millions in the once land of the free, that may be the only justice one can point to.
The individual is dead and really exists only as a small part of a greater whole, whose welfare is determined by self appointed philosopher kings, known otherwise by such terms as Senator, Congressman, Czar and President. City Councilman, Mayor and County Sheriff are soon to be added to the known as also list, you just wait.
Just pick up a newspaper, if there are any still being published where you live, and read a few of the stories. Find one where the government is somehow involved and think about how the role of the government is presented in the story and how minimal the role of the ordinary citizen is portrayed, if at all. Now think to yourself how the portrayal of government squares with the idea that our "elected officials" are our servants.
Like in the Allstate Insurance commercial: Confused? Don't be. That is the paradigm I speak of, where government is everything and we are nothing. It is the paradigm that the popular major media outlets have been complicit in supporting for decades. It is the paradigm they want you to become comfortable with. It is the paradigm that will be used to enslave you and your family, your neighbors and friends. In the end, government will be the Queen and We, the people, will merely be worker ants.
Complicity: Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or crime. But the good news is, all the reporters and talking heads who helped bring about the great ant mound will also be worker ants too. Not even they will be spared the disgrace, and in the great crime of enslaving millions in the once land of the free, that may be the only justice one can point to.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What's So Special About H1N1?
Headline on CNN.com "Obama declares H1N1 emergency." Whoopee-doo! According to the article about about 1000 persons have died from the H1N1 virus yet if you look up, here, how many deaths are caused by the regular annual flu in the United States it is estimated at 36,000. Where was the declared emergency for that this year. Or last year? Why only declare an emergency for H1N1?
Because it's sexy and it upsets the public more than worse news about a regular flu would and it makes things easier to usurp more power (for the Federal government, that is) because now we are in an emergency which is bound to scare even more crap out of an already crapped out scared bunch of dependent on the government for everything people. Whew! That was a lot.
When Obama was elected I told a couple of folks I work with, Democrats of course, that he was going to be dangerous to the liberties we all enjoy. Neither of them believed me. But lately neither of them have said a word about the great job Obama is doing being our President. Hmmm....
Because it's sexy and it upsets the public more than worse news about a regular flu would and it makes things easier to usurp more power (for the Federal government, that is) because now we are in an emergency which is bound to scare even more crap out of an already crapped out scared bunch of dependent on the government for everything people. Whew! That was a lot.
When Obama was elected I told a couple of folks I work with, Democrats of course, that he was going to be dangerous to the liberties we all enjoy. Neither of them believed me. But lately neither of them have said a word about the great job Obama is doing being our President. Hmmm....
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Liberties of our Forebears
In a note to myself I scribbled the words "The liberties enjoyed by the generation of the Founding Fathers may well amaze most of us and, in fact, be deemed by us as too much liberty."
Is there such a state of being defined by the exercise of too much liberty? This seems to be the paradigm of the modern American citizen. We are used to the prospect of being stopped by the police for sundry reasons, most notably as a result of how fast we drive our cars. In fact we are probably more fearful of that inconvenience than being "inconvenienced" by a criminal act by someone we've never met and would never see coming anyway.
And that says volumes about where we are as a society than anything else. Are we more afraid of our government institutions than we are of complete strangers who share our habitat? In essence, are we afraid of our government? And if we are, why?
Perhaps many of us go about our business never giving a thought to this question, but it is worth asking. If we live in a society in which our worst nightmares are of arrest by authorities for "crimes" that were mere misdemeanors yesterday, and not even misdemeanors the day before, then we should begin finding out where that crazy idea that we are free came from.
When I was twelve years old my dad gave me and my younger brother each our own 12 gauge shotguns. We were permitted to carry our shotguns from the home, down the street, in broad daylight, with ammunition and then into the woods where we would load them and hunt or just shoot stuff. No big deal. That was 38 years ago.
I doubt that would be allowed to happen today. But why? What has changed since then? I never took my shotgun to school. In fact I never thought I should or even could. I never used it in a criminal manner and never thought to do so. But, something has changed in 38 years. Now anyone, especially a young person, is so suspect if in possession of a firearm that the whole scenario seems to draw way too much response and way too much judiciary review.
This is so not the same place in which Sam Adams sojourned. I have never lived there, even though I have lived here all my life.
Is there such a state of being defined by the exercise of too much liberty? This seems to be the paradigm of the modern American citizen. We are used to the prospect of being stopped by the police for sundry reasons, most notably as a result of how fast we drive our cars. In fact we are probably more fearful of that inconvenience than being "inconvenienced" by a criminal act by someone we've never met and would never see coming anyway.
And that says volumes about where we are as a society than anything else. Are we more afraid of our government institutions than we are of complete strangers who share our habitat? In essence, are we afraid of our government? And if we are, why?
Perhaps many of us go about our business never giving a thought to this question, but it is worth asking. If we live in a society in which our worst nightmares are of arrest by authorities for "crimes" that were mere misdemeanors yesterday, and not even misdemeanors the day before, then we should begin finding out where that crazy idea that we are free came from.
When I was twelve years old my dad gave me and my younger brother each our own 12 gauge shotguns. We were permitted to carry our shotguns from the home, down the street, in broad daylight, with ammunition and then into the woods where we would load them and hunt or just shoot stuff. No big deal. That was 38 years ago.
I doubt that would be allowed to happen today. But why? What has changed since then? I never took my shotgun to school. In fact I never thought I should or even could. I never used it in a criminal manner and never thought to do so. But, something has changed in 38 years. Now anyone, especially a young person, is so suspect if in possession of a firearm that the whole scenario seems to draw way too much response and way too much judiciary review.
This is so not the same place in which Sam Adams sojourned. I have never lived there, even though I have lived here all my life.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Please, Stop Lying to Me!
It is apparent to me that since all gun control is proposed as a means to lower the crime rate and yet areas where guns are most severely prohibited have the highest rates of crime, the argument is a failed argument. So, what is the real goal of firearms prohibitionists?
The Brady Campaign voices its main concern as "gun violence" yet seems completely unconcerned about violence committed by other means. Why just gun violence? The same can be said about the Violence Policy Center and a host of other organisations bent on prohibiting the ancient right of free men.
Since the Supreme Court decision DC-v- Heller, Mr. Heller was "allowed" to register his weapon and be issued a license so he may have a firearm in his home to protect himself and his family from gun violence, and violence by other means, at the hands of an uncaring home invader. However it was not that simple. He was not allowed to register the weapon of his choice since it was by a cleverly structured definition a machine gun, but only considered as such by Washington DC authorities, he could not lawfully even possess it and had to settle on a revolver instead of the more utilitarian semi-automatic handgun he had in mind.
Now, Mr. Heller is a "Special Police Officer" in the District of Columbia and while on the job is required/permitted? to carry a firearm in order to fully execute his duties. Now, I ask, what is the real purpose of the gun prohibitionists when the law is used to prohibit handgun ownership of not only a law abiding citizen, but a law enforcing citizen? I can only conclude that the ultimate goal of all gun control schemes is to strip us all of our civil liberties and then, and only then, may one speak of "all we, like sheep."
The Brady Campaign voices its main concern as "gun violence" yet seems completely unconcerned about violence committed by other means. Why just gun violence? The same can be said about the Violence Policy Center and a host of other organisations bent on prohibiting the ancient right of free men.
Since the Supreme Court decision DC-v- Heller, Mr. Heller was "allowed" to register his weapon and be issued a license so he may have a firearm in his home to protect himself and his family from gun violence, and violence by other means, at the hands of an uncaring home invader. However it was not that simple. He was not allowed to register the weapon of his choice since it was by a cleverly structured definition a machine gun, but only considered as such by Washington DC authorities, he could not lawfully even possess it and had to settle on a revolver instead of the more utilitarian semi-automatic handgun he had in mind.
Now, Mr. Heller is a "Special Police Officer" in the District of Columbia and while on the job is required/permitted? to carry a firearm in order to fully execute his duties. Now, I ask, what is the real purpose of the gun prohibitionists when the law is used to prohibit handgun ownership of not only a law abiding citizen, but a law enforcing citizen? I can only conclude that the ultimate goal of all gun control schemes is to strip us all of our civil liberties and then, and only then, may one speak of "all we, like sheep."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)