San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 13, 2014

The Iraq War Was Fought In Vain

Let's admit it, shall we?  Although patriotic Amerikans are loath to admit that any brave soldier wearing a costume bearing an emblem of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika ever dies in vain, the simple truth of the matter is that every drop of blood spilled in Iraq was wasted.  Every person who has died there has died totally in vain.  Confession is good for the soul and it is time for SDA citizens to issue one.  It is time for the citizens of this land to confess that wars of imperial aggression and occupation always fail and those who prosecute such wars, at the very best, needlessly suffer in vain.  At the worst they are murderers occupying a foreign country for their own glory.  I will leave the worst case for another day.  Today let's consider the best case where SDA soldiers have simply suffered and died in vain.
I grew up during the Vietnam war.  It has been interesting to see the difference in the public's appraisal of the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq.  The two wars were essentially of the same nature and character.  In both cases the military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika had no business being there.  In both cases the wars went on and on with no end in sight.  In both cases the leaders of the military constantly touted how they were accomplishing their "objectives", whatever those were, and that our eventual retreat was not really a defeat.  In both cases the countries we were "protecting" immediately fell into civil war the moment we withdrew.  In both cases the indigenous military forces "trained" by the SDA immediately fell apart once we left.  In both cases the indigenous peoples we were fighting while we were there immediately won the civil wars and took over leadership of the country.  Indeed, the only difference between the two wars that I can see is that the war in Iraq was immensely popular with the Amerikan public and the war in Vietnam was intensely unpopular with the citizens of the SDA.  Other than that, they were identical.
Now why would two failed wars of imperial aggression have such different appraisals in the minds of the citizens back home?  I would suggest that the primary reason for the different appraisals of the wars is directly related to the propaganda dispensed at the start of them.  With Vietnam we were continually informed that if we did not stop the communists in that southeastern Asian country we could expect them to be knocking on the door of Amerika in a few short years.  It was all nonsense of course.  The communists never posed a legitimate threat to the national security of the SDA.  But it was the reason we were told we needed to send our military forces to Vietnam.  And many people believed it, at least for a while.  But with daily news reports showing dead Amerikan soldiers in body bags it did not take long for people to realize that the Vietnam war was primarily being fought to satisfy the military-industrial complex's desire for something to do and to patronize Richard Nixon's imperial ambitions and sense of Amerikan exceptionalism.  Public opinion rapidly turned.  Soldiers were seen as murderers and were treated with great disrespect when they returned home.  Eventually SDA forces beat a hasty retreat and we all hoped that a lesson would be learned from the debacle.  Those hopes were in vain.
The Iraq war was fought for one reason and one reason alone.  King George II wanted to avenge his perceived slight of his father, King George I, by going after Saddam Hussein.  King George II did not like the way Saddam strutted around claiming to have successfully repelled the SDA invasion forces when his father failed to sack Baghdad and execute Saddam in the first Iraqi war.  When 9/11 happened the first thing King George told his cabinet of trusted advisers was that they needed to find some way to pin the collapse of the towers on Saddam.  It did not matter that there was no correlation whatsoever.  King George was going to get Saddam one way or the other. Skillfully using the strong desire to go and kill some foreigners that was burning brightly in the hearts of all true patriots after the towers fell, King George launched a successful propaganda campaign that most Amerikans believed.  We needed to destroy Iraq and kill Saddam in order to avenge 9/11. 
We all know how it turned out.  Those responsible for 9/11 had no contact with Iraq or Saddam at all.  Still, King George's cabinet members informed him that Saddam was secretly meeting with Al-Qaeda and aiding them in their worldwide jihad against the SDA. Furthermore, King George was informed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Saddam had nuclear bombs and was prepared to either use them himself or sell them to Al-Qaeda to use against the SDA.  That was all he needed.  The war was not declared and King George, as Commander-in-Chief, ordered the SDA military into Iraq.  Saddam was quickly caught and murdered.  King George proudly stood on the deck of an SDA aircraft carrier and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished."  Apparently he was too stupid to realize what he had just done.
Saddam Hussein was the one man who could keep the various waring factions in Iraq from tearing the country apart in civil war.  He skillfully handled the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds.  He maintained a secular civil government that stood as a strong beacon against militant Islamic forces in the region.  King George apparently did not realize the good things he was doing for the area.  Blinded by personal ambition he could think of only one thing....get Saddam.  Once Saddam was killed there was no reason for those waring factions to avoid civil war.  To the surprise of nobody except King George, Iraq plunged into civil war.  For a great description of how the murder of Saddam Hussein plunged Iraq into civil war, go here
The war droned on and on for years as SDA forces would run around the country, killing "objectives" here and there and proclaiming success at all times.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.  Tens of thousands of SDA soldiers died or were injured.  And what was accomplished?  Nothing. Absolutely nothing.  The SDA spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war of imperial expansion and personal vengeance in order to establish a puppet government in Iraq only to discover that the moment its military forces evacuated the country it fell to indigenous forces which had been lying in wait for the opportunity to emerge and take over the country once again.  Will we ever learn our lesson?
Today I read that King Obama is considering using military forces in Iraq.  How strange.  Why is a civil war in Iraq any of our business?  Please help me to understand how a civil war in Iraq is a danger to the national security of the SDA?  Please explain how my life or property is endangered as various turban headed Bedouins scurry about Iraq shouting slogans and shooting machine guns into the air?  Could it be that our King wants to reenter Iraq only to save face?  Could this be Richard Nixon all over again?  Could this be King George II all over again?
Rather than restarting the war in Iraq I suggest we do this instead.  I suggest we confess to the sin of waging wars of imperial expansion.  I suggest we repent of that sin and promise to never wage a war of aggression against another country again.  I suggest we admit that wars of aggression, as opposed to wars of defense, are always immoral.  I suggest that we confess that those who prosecute wars of aggression are murderers who are killing innocent people.  And, perhaps most difficult of all for a good old patriotic Amerikan, I suggest we confess that the war in Iraq was fought in vain. may be hard but it is good for the soul.  

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Let's Make Being Fat Illegal

In case you are unaware the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is in the middle of an epidemic.  No, it is not an epidemic of ATV accidents and injuries.  I read about that one today while eating my Cheerios. ATV accidents and injuries are a big story in light of the Amy Van Dyken accident. And no, it is not an epidemic of people drowning while attempting to raft down snow-melt swollen rivers along the front range of Colorado.  I also read about that epidemic a couple of days ago while eating my Cheerios.  Lastly, it is not an epidemic of people addicted to Cheerios.  No, this is serious business.  We have an epidemic of obesity in this fat land.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is what the government experts tell us about this obesity epidemic.
According to the CDC, "In 2012, an estimated 18.1% (42.1 million) U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers."  Also according to the CDC, "More than one-third of U.S. adults (34.9%) are obese. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight."
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an estimated 110,000 Americans die as a result of obesity each year, and about one-third of all cancers are directly related to it.  Data collected from over 60,000 Canadians also shows that obesity now leads to more doctor visits than smoking. One in four Americans is also pre-diabetic or diabetic, and heart disease and cancer, both of which are associated with obesity, top the mortality charts.  Clearly, the issue of how to achieve good health has never been more pertinent to more people. Yet despite the enormity of this problem, very little is being done to effectively combat obesity."
As far as that Canadian study goes, consider this, "This may come as a surprise to some, but data collected from over 60,000 Canadians show that obesity leads to more doctor visits than smoking. The idea that being overweight can be worse for your health than smoking is likely to make many balk, considering how "normal" it has become to carry around extra pounds, but in terms of overall health effects and subsequent health care costs, it's likely true.  The study estimates that if obesity were not a factor, doctor visits in Canada would decrease by 10 percent. The decrease would be even greater if you take into account problems related to type 2 diabetes, which is also directly related to obesity and poor diet.  With the obesity epidemic putting pressure on health care systems everywhere, this news may trigger financial penalties or incentives to get people to lose weight, according to Medical News Today."
So there you have it.  Almost twice as many people are addicted to food and suffering from the medical condition known as obesity as are addicted to nicotine and suffering from the medical condition known as smoking.  Yet despite this fact, the medical bureaus of the federal government continue to wage a war on smoking and smokers while barely lifting their lipid filled eyelids to see the problem of obesity.  Fat is killing us and nobody cares!  Think about the children!  Indeed, more children are suffering from being fat now than at any other time in our history.  And think about the cost to the taxpayers.  More money is being spent on treating people suffering from being fat than is being spent on treating the relatively few people with smoking related diseases.  And it is only going to get worse.  Smoking is declining while fat is increasing.  What are we to do?
Never fear, the Mad Welshman is here.  I have a prescription that can solve the obesity epidemic overnight.  All it will take is for Congress to enact a few simple laws and for our brave men in blue to enforce those laws against these disgusting fat people.  The government has already shown us how to conduct an effective propaganda campaign against an indefensible minority group.  That group is called "smokers" and we all know how evil they are.  We need to act fast, while the number of obese people is still a minority.  Once they become a majority they will be morally correct and skinny people will need to be persecuted.  So, without further ado, here are my unsolicited and totally unscientific principles for a solution to the obesity epidemic:
  • Adjust health insurance premiums and charge people by the pound.  Smokers already pay much higher premiums for health insurance than fat people.  Make the fatties pay for their profligacy.  It is only fair. 
  • Second hand fat is a serious problem.  Surely you have noticed how fat adults always have fat children.  See the connection?  It is obvious.  Make having fat children against the law.  Any parent seen putting too much food into the mouths of his/her children should be arrested.  Smokers are ticketed for smoking in their cars when children are present, why should fatsos not be ticketed for putting excessive food in their kid's mouths?
  • Don't allow fat people access to any theme park in the SDA.  Certainly you have noticed how the vast majority of all people at Disney World are obese?  It is pretty hard to miss...they are always sitting in the shade eating something.  Many of them are in wheelchairs only because they are too fat to walk the 100 yards to the next attraction.  We need to create some incentives to force these poor victims to change their lifestyles.  What could be better than installing turnstiles at Disney World that would not allow fat people access?  If some fatties are able to get past the turnstiles we should require Disney World to have designated "eating areas" where fat people can eat and other people can click their tongues and wag their heads while they walk by them.  In a word, treat them just like smokers.
  • Now that I have thought of it, designated eating areas are a very good idea in general.  They should be everywhere.  Any person who purchases any prepared food in any public setting should first be required to pass the fatso test.  Anyone who fails the test and is determined, by official government standards, to be fat (that would be 34% of you reading this), would be required to consume their calories in official fatso eating areas.  To discourage the use of these eating areas, all for the health of these poor people you know, they should be located in the most foul of locations.  In a word, follow the practice associated with designated smoking areas. Locate them next to feces filled dog parks.  Put them outdoors and subject to wind, rain, snow and cold.  Put them far enough away from people so we don't have to associate with them but close enough to us so good, non-fat, people can express their disdain for these folks with a vengeance.
  • Taxpayers should joyfully fund television commercials portraying fat people as idiots and fools.  Every opportunity to make fun of them for their stupid and self-destructive behavior should be taken.  Show some of them in hospital beds.  Show some of them continuing to shovel food into their mouths even though they are dying of fatness.
  • Government schools should indoctrinate their inmates.....oops, I mean students, in the belief that fat people are subhuman.  That will make it much easier to treat them as subhuman in future social situations.  Make it clear that people who are fat are disgusting, rude, selfish and, above all, smell really bad.  In other words, treat them just like smokers.
  • When you confront a fat person in public you should have a ritualistic behavior to fall back upon.  I would suggest that every time you come near a fat person you should vocalize little pig sounds.  You know what I mean, a series of grunts and squeals vocalized into the air and directed at no one in particular.  The fat people will know what you are doing but you can claim you are clearing your throat.  If you do not understand what I mean, just watch (and listen) to how people cough and hack when in close proximity to smokers.  It is essentially the same behavior.
I could go on and on but I won't.  That would take all of the fun out of it.  Be creative.  Come up with ways to teach those fatsos a lesson.  Make it your aim to show them you are morally and physically superior to them.  Do it everyday.  Make it a part of your life.  When in doubt about how to best accomplish this goal just think about how you already treat smokers and do the same thing to the fatties.  And don't worry, they deserve this ill treatment.  They are all worse than Hitler you know.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Stephen Colbert Is An Envy-Filled Socialist

A fellow Welshman sent me a link to an article that sent me into a rage.  It is a story of economic ignorance, envy, socialism, stupidity and bullying.  It centers around a "comedian" by the name of Stephen Colbert.
Colbert is a famous comedian, or so I am told.  He has his own show on the Comedy Network.  He is on five days a week.  I have never seen his show but I am told he lampoons the daily news on his show.  He has a large following and is very popular.  After reading the article I was sent I can see why.  He is a raving socialist and raving socialists are always popular with the majority of the envious people in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Here are some select quotations from the article:
"For years, publishers in Britain and America have complained privately about the online giant’s tough negotiating tactics and relentless discounting, but few have been willing to speak out....However, the decision by Hachette, one of the “Big Five” publishers, to refuse to agree to a new contract with Amazon in America in a row about pricing could be a seminal moment.  Hachette has gone public after customers began asking why some of its books have been unavailable to buy on Amazon. Other titles are being offered at full price, instead of on discount, or are taking many weeks to ship.
The impact has already been dramatic. A few weeks into the dispute that began a month ago, Hachette lost the number one spot on the Digital Book World bestseller list of ebooks in what news agency Bloomberg called 'a palpable sign of Amazon’s dominance in the publishing industry'.  Authors are livid. US TV chat show host and Hachette author Stephen Colbert is so angry that he 'gave the finger' twice to Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos on his TV show this week.  'This is a big blow to my bottom line,' warned the waspish Colbert. 'This has pushed me past my tipping point... so watch out, Bezos, because this means war.'   To make his point, Colbert urged viewers to buy the book California by Hachette author Edan Lepucki via an independent bookseller in Oregon. It instantly became a best seller.  Colbert, whose profile is sky-high after being named as the successor to talk-show legend David Letterman, also urged viewers to get a sticker saying 'I Didn’t Buy It On Amazon' via his website. 'We are going to prove that I can sell more books than Amazon,' declared Colbert."
So let me try and get this straight.  British and Amerikan publishing houses (called the "big five") have been cutting deals with Amazon for years to distribute their books to the public.  I don't know anything about the publishing business but I suspect it involves the publisher and the distributor agreeing to terms about how much the publisher will be paid for each book that is sold.  Neither the publisher nor the distributor has a gun put to their head when it comes time to sign the contract.  Both do so because both believe it is in their best interest to do so.  Then, along comes big, bad Amazon.
Amazon is a behemoth.  Amazon has become a behemoth by doing one thing very well.  What is that thing?  Amazon sells billions of things to millions of people for prices those millions of people want to pay.  Yep, they serve the consumer. And they do it extraordinarily well.  As a result Amazon makes a lot of profit.   Amazon has become highly successful in the same way Wal-Mart has become highly successful. Amazon relentlessly pursues the lowest possible price for each good that it sells.  Chances are you will not find anything for sale anywhere else at a price lower than what Amazon can offer.  So, you might be wondering, what is so bad about that?  Nothing, unless you are a envy-filled socialist.  
Apparently the "big five" publishers are not happy with the contracts they have been signing with Amazon.  I have only one question for them....why, then, did you sign the contract?  If you were not happy with its terms you should not have signed it.  But they signed them anyway and then decided to complain publicly about the terms.  That is called "stupidity."  One of the publishers, named Hachette, recently decided not to renew its contract with Amazon.  Good for them.  If they did not like the terms and believe they can do better elsewhere then they should go elsewhere.  The problem is they were wrong.  Refusing to sign with Amazon turned out to be a bad business decision.  Without the Amazon deal the speedy distribution of their books has disappeared.  The prices for their books have also gone up.  Not surprisingly, people are buying less books from them.  Not surprisingly the authors who have inked contracts with Hachette to sell their books are "livid."  What is surprising is who they are livid with.  Rather than using common sense and being angry with Hachette for refusing to sign the Amazon contract, they are following Colbert in misdirecting their anger to a successful profit-seeking corporation.  Incredibly, they are angry with Amazon.
Colbert's hypocrisy is palpable.  He is angry with Amazon for wanting to make money.  Why is he angry?  Because he wants to make more money!  As he said, "this is a big blow to my bottom line."  So Colbert is angry with Amazon because his publisher stupidly refused to sign a distribution contract with Amazon that is costing him sales.  Rather than fire his publisher he makes the predictably socialistic decision to complain about the profit-seeking corporation.  Colbert is so angry he made an obscene gesture towards the Amazon CEO on his television show.  In fact, he did it twice. I guess that is what passes for high quality comedic entertainment these days.  I can just imagine the roars of laughter coming from his juvenile audience.  I would not have expected anything less from a socialist comedian.
Colbert has decided to take his "war" against Amazon by trying to pull an Oprah.  Oprah, as many of you are no doubt aware, simply needs to mention a book on her television show and legions of followers immediately make that book a bestseller.  Colbert is trying to do the same thing.  To prove his point he had his followers purchase a book named "California" which is published by Hachette and distributed through an independent distributor in Oregon.  According to the article, "it instantly became a bestseller."  Good for him and good for them.
People who choose to buy "California" from the distributor in Oregon are no doubt paying much more than they would pay to buy it from Amazon.  There is a reason why they are willing to pay the premium.  In addition to paying for the book they are also paying for a sense of moral superiority.  When they buy the book they tell themselves that, as faithful followers of the Colbert pied-piper, they are morally superior to a company that seeks to make a profit by selling goods to the public at prices they are willing to pay.  That seems like a steep price to pay for an incorrect and hypocritical sense of moral superiority.  But who am I to say they are wrong?  I am not a socialist. 

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Bergdahl Proves Amerikans Are Shockingly Paranoid

Everyone has an opinion about the Bowe Bergdahl situation.  For the most part it seems as if the majority of the folks living in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are not pleased with King Obama's decision to exchange five Taliban prisoners for one Amerikan defector.  Bill O'Reily was ranting about the injustice of it all last night on his show.  A poll taken by Fox News claims that 68% of all people who have every worn a military costume also believe it is a horrible thing to have done.  It seems like every self-proclaimed patriot, every lover of the warfare state, every lover of the SDA government and every person who believes in Amerikan exceptionalism is in opposition to our King's decision. 
One of the strongest arguments repeatedly being used by those who oppose the King's decision is that his actions have now unleashed five armed and dangerous men upon the world.  According to these folks these five men present a clear and present danger to the national security of the SDA.  Releasing them, they say, will inevitably result in a terrorist attack upon SDA citizens on SDA soil that could result in the deaths of millions.  This completely predictable response to an innocuous prisoner exchange is to be expected in a land where paranoia controls the minds of most citizens.  Citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika believe every piece of outlandish propaganda that spews from the mouths of our rulers.  Couple that with the fact that our rulers have a vested interest in keeping us terrified of every other person in the world that refuses to bow down and kiss our collective ring and you have the perfect combination for extreme paranoia and a flight to government for personal security and protection.
Eric Margolis is a veteran journalist and expert on the Middle East.  Here is a portion of what he recently wrote about the grossly paranoid overreaction to the release of the five Taliban prisoners:
"They ludicrously claim the five released Taliban commanders released into Qatar’s custody are somehow a threat to the mighty United States.  What was really happening was that President Obama was finally winding down the foolish, 12-year Afghan War begun by President George W. Bush who needed a target for America’s anger after the humiliating 9/11 attacks that caught the White House sleeping on guard duty.  Afghanistan joins Iraq as America’s second lost war: 22,000 US dead and wounded, emotionally damaged soldiers, hundreds of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and $1 trillion down the drain. Both wars were waged on money borrowed from China and Japan, leaving the US with a mammoth foreign debt.  Contrary to all the pro-war propaganda we have heard, Taliban was founded as an anti-Communist religious movement dedicated to ending mass rape of Afghan women, lawlessness, and runaway drug production. I know this because I was there. Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with 'terrorism'.  It was funded by Pakistan’s intelligence agency and Interior Ministry.  Taliban offered to turn over inconvenient guest Osama bin Laden to another Muslim nation for trial once the US presented a proper extradition request. Washington never did, preferring war. The men who attacked New York and Washington were mostly Saudis. The plot was hatched in Hamburg and Madrid. We still don’t know really how much bin Laden was involved."  (Eric Margolis)
After 9/11 it was known that somebody would have to die to pay for the sins of the people, mostly Saudis, who were responsible for the deaths of several thousand Amerikans. Of course King George could not wage war on the Saudis, they were his friends.  So he looked elsewhere.  We all know that King George desperately wanted to settle an old score with Saddam Hussein so he ordered his advisers to cook up some reason to invade Iraq and execute Hussein.  We all know how that turned out.  Somehow it was determined that Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" and was intent upon attacking the SDA with them.  He and his supporters had to go.  Being extremely good at killing others, the SDA military quickly routed him and replaced him with a puppet ruler of its own.  Iraq has since plunged into civil war and will likely stay in that status for many decades to come.  Oh well, that is not our problem any more. Let the Iraqis figure it out.
Before fighting an aggressive, not defensive and therefore moral, war against Iraq, King George had also determined that the Taliban in Afghanistan was responsible for hiding Osama bin Laden from him.  As it turned out, he was correct about that bit of intelligence.  That meant, of course, that an undeclared war had to be waged against Afghanistan.  That war continues to this day.  Margolis argues that King George could have had bin Laden without waging war on Afghanistan.  He simply would have had to agree to operate within the confines of the Muslim governments in the area.  George would have none of that and went in with both barrels blazing.  Those stinking foreigners deserved everything they got from our brave and heroic troops, including death.  Praised be the Amerikan soldier.  He is always a liberator and never does anything that is not morally pure as the driven snow.
Let's admit it.  The Taliban never has, does not now and never will present even a remote threat to the national security of the SDA.  Let's admit it.  The Taliban is only involved with the SDA because we shipped our military to their country and bombed them into oblivion.  Let's admit it.  It is impossible to win a war as an occupying force in a country with an indigenous culture.  I challenge any historian to come up with an example of a successful military campaign that resulted in the complete take-over of another country that did not bring about a counter-insurgency that kept the country in a perpetual state of war.  It is impossible to win a war of occupation.  So, let us also admit that we have not "won" the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.  All we accomplished in Iraq was the total destabilization of the country and the resultant civil war.  All we accomplished in Afghanistan was the temporary suppression of the influence of the Taliban.  As we retreat from the country the Taliban will return and things will end up being just like they were before 9/11.  All that has been accomplished is the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the spending of trillions of dollars in morally indefensible wars.  That sounds like business as usual for SDA career politicians.
So what does all of this have to do with today's topic?  Everything.  In order to justify our wars of imperial aggression and monarchical revenge (make no mistake, Iraq was all about the King George the younger avenging King George senior) it is necessary to convince the sheeple of this sad land that every enemy is a serious threat to our continuing existence.  The Taliban, prior to 9/11, was no threat to the SDA.  The Taliban, prior to 9/11, had no interest in the SDA whatsoever.  The Taliban mostly consists of turban-headed cave dwellers seeking to impose their version of Muslim law on a small group of people under their control.  How did that reality ever rise to the point where their activities are deemed threatening to the all powerful SDA?  Besides running around shouting wildly and shooting their guns into the air they are incapable of doing much of anything but imposing gang-style control over the people within their domain.  And now, five of them have been released from an immoral and unconstitutional prison operated by the SDA in Cuba and permitted to return to their country.  Please help me to understand.  How does this make me less safe?
Almost everyone who opposes the prisoner exchange believes that SDA citizens living in the SDA are now less safe, whatever that means, as a result of the exchange.  Please explain how that is.  I really don't understand how that can be true.  How can five diaper heads living in a cave in a country half way around the world, armed with a couple of rifles and clothed with togas and sandals, in any way constitute a threat to me and my way of life?  These men are not evil geniuses.  They are not sitting around plotting the overthrow of the world.  All they want is to impose their version of Muslim law over those people who live in their domain. Why should that be any of my business? Why should that be the business of SDA career politicians and executive branch rulers?  Why should I be told by none other than Bill O'Reily that these five men are a serious threat to my life and property?  Has everyone gone insane?  Are we a nation so filled with paranoia that we are incapable of determining what constitutes a legitimate threat to national security and what does not?
I am not less free today than I was in 2000 because of the activities of the Taliban.  I do not have greater personal security today than I had in 2000 because Saddam Hussein is dead.  Same goes for Osama bin Laden.  But, strangely, I am much less free and in much greater danger of the loss of my life and property today than I was a scant 14 years ago.  Do you know why?  Because the response of my government to 9/11 has created a new country that I do not recognize.  I don't fear the Taliban and neither should you.  I do fear the SDA government, the SDA spying apparatus, the SDA military and the SDA militarized police forces, and you should too.  They are out to get you.  Believing that the Taliban is out to get you is paranoia.  Believing that the SDA government is out to get you is just common sense.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Lessons From NBC's "Dateline"

Dateline is a television show on NBC that recounts tales of murder.  Each weekly episode describes how someone was murdered and how the cops figured out who it was.  Each murder case is followed through the judicial system until a verdict is rendered.  They are all true stories.  They are all horribly depressing.  Why, you ask?  Because they dramatically illustrate how the judicial system in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika no longer exists.  Each show proves that justice no longer exists in this sad land. Allow me to explain.
Perhaps the best way to describe how Dateline conclusively proves there is no justice in the SDA is to tell you about the many lessons I have learned from watching the show.  Over the years I have come to see distinct patterns in the way each murder case is resolved.  They all seem to follow the same format and that format has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with political posturing.  Why am I not surprised?  Here are some of the lessons I have learned from Dateline:
Lesson # 1:  The murderer is always the spouse.  Now maybe the producers of the show just choose murders in which that is the case.  I don't know.  Maybe spousal murders make better stories.  I don't know.  What I do know is that most people who are murdered are murdered by someone they know and, more often than not, the one they know is their spouse.   This does not mean that the spouse is always the one who physically performs the murder.  In cases where the wife is the murderer it is quite common for her to hire someone to do it for her, usually a man, but the point is the spouse is almost always the reason why the murder takes place.
Lesson # 2:  Almost everyone is having an extra-marital affair.  This, of course, does not surprise me.  I can't recall a single episode in which one spouse murdered the other in which one or both of the partners were not involved in some sort of adulterous affair.  It reminds me of what a pastor I used to know always said.  "Sin, like bananas, comes in bunches."  How true.
Lesson # 3:  If your spouse ever ends up dead be sure to grieve the right way.  I never cease to be amazed at how everyone interviewed in relation to the murdered spouse has an opinion about how the surviving spouse grieved the event.  Inevitably someone believes that his/her grief was "rehearsed" or insufficient or over the top.  Every person involved in a murder seems to have some standard for grieving and if the surviving spouse does not measure up to that standard he/she immediately becomes the prime suspect.  Jurors have occasionally voted to convict a spouse on nothing more than the way he grieved.  So much for objectivity.
Lesson # 4:  "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a fictional principle.  That lesson is one of the most surprising to me.  I was brought up believing that a person was innocent until proven guilty.  Until a person could be considered guilty of murder it had to be proven that he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That means powerful evidence needed to be presented to prove his guilt.  Boy was I wrong!  Week after week I see people convicted on nothing more than a couple of pieces of circumstantial evidence.  I saw an episode two weeks ago in which the defendant wasted away in prison for three years while two trials resulted in hung juries.  There was not a shred of physical evidence to prove he murdered his wife but 8 of the 12 jurors voted to convict him of murder on the basis of the argument that no evidence was the primary evidence he had killed her.  It was madness.  But it was true.
Lesson # 5:   The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (what the SDA was prior to morphing into what it is today) clearly states that each defendant has the "right to a speedy trial."  While waiting for the trial the writ of habeus corpus should allow the defendant to remain free on bail.  These things almost never happen.  In case after case the hapless defendant is incarcerated anywhere from 1-3 years while the process plays out.  Bail is always denied.  In cases where the defendant is found not guilty he has wasted several years of his life in prison unnecessarily.  He will never get those years back.  He will never be compensated for them.  That leads me to the next lesson I learned.
Lesson # 6:  The process is rigged because the state has unlimited resources.  The District Attorney has unlimited access to taxpayer dollars.  That means the prosecution will never run out of money.  That also means the prosecution has a strong incentive to slow things down and draw things out.  Since the right to a speedy trial has been abandoned there is little for the defenseless defendant to do but slowly watch his resources fritter away as he pays attorneys to defend him.  Of course he always has the option to plead guilty to a lesser charge to get out of the system.  In the old days this was known as torturing a person until he would plead guilty to something he had not done just to stop the torture. Today it is called civil justice.  It goes on all the time.  Go figure.
Lesson # 7:  Neither the cops nor the government have any objectivity in the matter.  It is shocking to witness, week after week, how the cops and the district attorneys care only about getting an arrest or getting a conviction.  The actual facts of the matter appear to be irrelevant.  The only thing that matters to the cops and the district attorneys is how to spin things to get an arrest or a conviction.  They rush to judgement.  They harass, badger and humiliate anyone they suspect in the crime.  They put words in the mouths of suspects and defendants.  They lie with regularity.  It is a disgusting thing to watch.
Lesson # 8:  The entire judicial system exists for one enrich its participants.  The lawyers make money.  The judges make money.  The prosecutors make money.  In high profile cases all groups get free publicity which they use to advance their legal and political careers.  Meanwhile, the defendants are ground up into tiny pieces and spat out.  They really do not matter at all.  The entire performance is about theater that enriches those on the side of the government at the expense of the taxpayers and to the harm of the civil liberties of those who manage to get caught up in the machine as defendants.
Lesson # 9:  This is a series of short, simple lessons.  Don't ever talk to the cops.  Don't ever agree to a search.  Don't ever participate in the judicial system if you can avoid it.  Do everything you can to avoid what passes for a judicial system in this land because it is corrupt from top to bottom.