Banana Republic

In the video below a man attempts to flee from the police but finds himself trapped. So he lays on the ground to surrender. The police officer, George Fierro, then kicks him in the head. That is followed by pepper spray and additional blows from the next police officer. The K-9 unit sicks the dog on him.



The DA won't prosecute the cops because the suspect is "positioning himself to attack." And we are dealing here with a "highly dangerous and unpredictable criminal."

What America needs more than anything is a restoration of the rule of law. We need a country where the rule of law applies to everyone, not just the weak and powerless.

Scott Ritter Knew

A lot of people know about how Scott Ritter forcefully made the argument that the Bush administration in fact did not have convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. Yes, weapons inspectors were withdrawn by the US in 1998 and Ritter admitted that it was possible he had developed weapons since then. But he also pointed out that the development of these weapons should still be detectable. We can't rule out that he has succeeded in developing these in an undetectable way. But we shouldn't leap from "He could possibly have developed weapons" to "He probably developed weapons."

But as war approached Ritter was able to draw firmer conclusions about the weapons programs. Inspectors were allowed back in. They were actually able to inspect the various sites that the CIA and US government had identified as locations where prohibited weapons were being manufactured. They turned up nothing. So there was a very brief period before the war where we really knew. Ritter forcefully tried to communicate that. Obviously to no avail. Watch a program below that offers some of his analysis prior to the war.

Ritter is now making the case regarding Iran. What he's saying is a less controversial now. We know they aren't making nuclear weapons. But those with truly thick skulls still want to pretend they are. They want to listen to the Krauthammers and the Kristols and O'Reillys and all the other pundits that were so colossally wrong before. They'd have zero credibility in a media dominated by pursuit of truth. In a media owned by entities in pursuit of short term profit maximization however they still are treated with respect.

The History of Compulsory Education

Interested in understanding how and why compulsory education in the US came about? I stumbled upon an interesting source. If you are curious about this topic watch the 10 minute clip from below.



If that is enough to whet your appetite for more, the book by this author is available for free online. I'm not advocating everything within it, but I thought it was very enlightening (I've read about half so far).

Why Jesus Was Pretty Awesome

Jesus would have been a product of his time, so naturally there are some things about him that a liberal atheist like myself would object to. But set aside his opinions on slavery or eternal hell fire, views that he probably held more due to culture than conviction. Take a look at what really made him different. It's pretty damn impressive.

Who is it that is subjected to Jesus' most scathing criticism? It's the Pharisees. Read Matthew 23. It's an absolute tirade. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites. You give money to the temple and neglect justice and mercy. You travel the world to make converts and they become twice the sons of hell that you are. You are whitewash tombs, beautiful on the outside but inside full of dead men's bones. You snakes. You brood of vipers. You kill the prophets sent to you to help correct your ways. How can you possibly escape hell fire?

Here's what's amazing about this tirade. There are plenty of people in the world worth criticizing. How about pagans? How about the Roman leaders? Jesus never criticizes them. From Jesus' perspective they are awful people worthy of hell fire. Jesus says virtually nothing of either. He's repeatedly asked to weigh in on Roman matters, like the legitimacy of the Roman tax or the restriction Rome imposes on Jewish religious practice. He sidesteps it. He doesn't care. Why?

Because he understands something that Republicans today don't get. Who cares what the pagans do? Who cares what the Romans do? I am a Jew. I care what Jews do. I care what our leadership does. That is what I will focus on.

Turn on Bob Dutko today and all you hear is "Muslims are bad. Oprah is bad. Atheists are bad." And when you even try to get Bob, an American Christian, to talk about American atrocities, he says "I don't want to talk about it. That's bashing America. That's unpatriotic. What about Ahmadinejad? What about Fidel Castro?"

That's probably what the Pharisees told Jesus. "But look at the pagans!! Look at Rome!! You are anti-Israel. You are unpatriotic. You shouldn't criticize us."

That's probably what they said to Elijah or Jeremiah. "How dare you bash Israel!! That's unpatriotic. You shouldn't shine light on Israel's mistakes. You should only talk about the crimes of enemies of the state." Jesus knew that these people who stood up to the Jewish leadership at the time were the real heroes. They were hated for standing up against wicked Jewish behavior. They were killed for it. And that persecution was enabled by the prophets that flattered the king and told him he was so great. They probably told him that he was right to kill that prophet on his own authority, as Dutko praises Obama for killing US citizens on his authority.

I've seen the most committed Christians express extreme revulsion at the idea that we should follow the Golden Rule, just as Ron Paul was booed for suggesting we follow it as well. Republicans literally find Jesus' teachings repugnant and outrageous. That's because Jesus seems to have really cared about the poor and weak. He also seems to have recognized that if you really want to improve the world you should talk about what your own people are doing wrong. Those are the ones you can influence. Because this is actually effective it is demonized by totalitarians. The Soviets called dissidents "anti-Soviet" and those that take Jesus seriously in the US are called "anti-American." And we are called that by the very people that pretend to follow Jesus.

Doing My Part

I was disappointed reading articles in the Toledo Blade about the new I-Phone 4. It reads as if it would be reasonable to drop a few hundred dollars upgrading from a 3 to a 4. You can talk to the phone and ask questions. It's got a dual core processor. Blah, blah, blah. Aren't commercials supposed to be for the advertising section? An I-Phone 3 is a lot more than the phone I have. Where I stand I wasn't even going to go out and get a 3. And yet it's reasonable for people to consider upgrading from a 3 to a 4?

Why is it even considered rational to make such a move? I'll tell you why. Because our economy is structured such that we must consume more and more, even if that means disposing of perfectly good stuff. And so we are bombarded by propaganda that tries to convince us to make this irrational choice. And that propaganda works.

Is this sustainable? Absolutely not. We are going to have to figure out a way to have an economy that doesn't rely on this kind of thing. Right now we extract the equivalent of 112 Empire State Building's worth of material from the ground EVERY DAY to meet our consumptive needs. This can't continue. Don't fall for the propaganda. Do you really need a new phone or computer every year? Most people don't.

It's probably bad for the overall economy to fail to consume. But it's good for you personally. And it's good for the environment. Here are a few of the ways I try to resist temptation and keep my old crap working.

This is what I drive. A 1995 Ford Windstar. About 160K miles. Does the A/C work? No. Passenger window? No. Washer fluid pump? No. How about the heat? Not really. That's my own fault. I put the wrong thermostat in it. In fact the speedometer is a bit flaky. OK, this is maybe pushing it. I should make sure it's safe. My wife doesn't drive it. But let me tell you. I love this vehicle. Why? It's paid for and it works. Monthly insurance is nothing. It gets me to work every day. I don't need a new car even though a new one would be nice. But why waste the money and resources?

1995 is a long time ago and there's a lot of technology that this van lacks. But that can be remedied. For me GPS and an ability to plug in an audio device via an aux jack is nice, so I've added that as you can see. Not done in an especially pretty way, but it works. There's something about just continuing with this POS that gives me a thrill. I love parking it at work. A lot of people where I work are well paid. Most drive nice, newer cars. I'm paid decent. I make enough to get something nicer. People that make less than me and have more debt than me drive nicer cars. But I don't want to because I don't need it.

I splurged and bought an ipod touch on my birthday. Two and a half years ago. It works just exactly as it did when I bought it. Just as fast as it ever was. You can watch Netflix on it. Youtube videos are crystal clear. Do people think they need a new one to replace something like this every time an upgrade is released? The phone next to it does need to be replaced. It's 2 years old and apparently the processor can barely handle the OS. I've literally had the phone fail to ring because the processor can't keep up. So I'll get a new one shortly. But if in fact it worked now as it did when I got it I wouldn't replace it. It's a really great device.

Recently I was concerned that I'd need to get a new desktop computer. That kind of annoys me because I would think it should be easy to just buy components and upgrade. But it seems they are designed in a way that encourages you to discard them.

I bought mine in 2007 and it runs Windows Vista, which is flaky. I just had to wipe the HD 2 months back, and it's already acting strangely again. I was afraid I'd need to get a newer one. Five years is probably a typical lifetime for a desktop computer. But I was pricing new ones and to get one that has the kind of hardware I have was still going to be $400. I realized I can just buy Windows 7 for $120 and I think it should be good to go. This hardware can last a good length of time. But you do need to keep it clean. Every now and then take off the side panel and use the vacuum cleaner to get the dust out of there, especially in the CPU area. My CPU fan was kicking on constantly trying to keep the CPU cool. Now that I've cleaned it it never turns on.

My laptop is the same story. I have a Sony Vaio. I bought it in 2002. It has a 1.2 GHz processor and 256 meg of RAM. Not enough to run a modern Windows operating system. But an OS can be upgraded. Like with Ubuntu, which is not too processor intensive. As is the case for the desktop I think you can keep it running for a long time if you keep the dust out of it. Here's my processor fan prior to cleaning. It had been shutting down because it was overheating. Now it runs full tilt indefinitely. So now I can use this 10 year old laptop and it can still do most of what I need a computer to do.

This is my old GPS. Bought it in May of 2007. Still runs great. See the little USB port? That connector broke. I'm really not particularly good at fixing stuff like this, but a friend of mine happened to have access to the right connector for the board and another friend pried the thing apart and soldered the new connector on. Some of the trim broke in the process, but that doesn't bother me a bit. It's still going.

I hear a lot of people say "I'm the kind of person that really likes to have the latest and greatest, so that's why I've spent money on this upgrade." Yeah, you are that kind of person. And so are most people. And the reason we are that kind of people is because we are bombarded with advertising that is just really good at convincing us that we want and need the latest and greatest. Even when upgrading is not really necessary. We're subjected to this because it's profitable. But it's not good for us or for the environment.

The So Called Liberal Media on Nuclear Iran

An interesting catch from FAIR. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explains in an interview on Face the Nation that Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon. PBS clips that sentence, adds some commentary, and leaves the viewer with the opposite impression.

The Suppression Is Encouraging

On capitalism there are going to be a lot of people that make money not from working, but from owning. That's really not legitimate. But obviously it's something that these rich people really like. Who wouldn't want to collect most of the money while doing none of the work?

The major threat to that gravy train is when workers figure out that they don't really need that owner. They can do it themselves, distribute that money to the people doing the work, and tell the owner to pound sand. If you are an investor this is absolutely frightening. So when other countries have tried it, like Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iran, etc, we know what happened to them. Investors in this country and in the target country used their corporate tools, like the media and politicians, to try and frighten the population into thinking these countries were a danger. Then these places were attacked.

So far US residents haven't suffered as much suppression and violence. We live in a very open society. The law says we have a lot of freedoms. But like Frank Zappa pointed out, these are freedoms that are permitted only so long as they aren't used in a way that threatens the gravy train of the rich. As soon as you start exercising these freedoms in ways that aren't profitable, out come the billy clubs, pepper spray, etc.

There may have been no Occupy movement if not for the internet. I watched the development of Occupy very closely. I watched when the initiated a trial run at Wall St just to see what the cops would do before it was officially launched. I saw them be ignored in the main stream corporate media. I wouldn't have been able to see without the internet. And if I and others hadn't seen, it may have fizzled. How badly do the rich wish it had fizzled? Did it have an effect?

The answer is found in SOPA and NDAA, acts that could serve to block Occupy type action in the future. Our free and open society has now dispensed with the fifth amendment of the Constitution, which grants people a right to have charges brought against them openly adjudicated by a third party. Now you can literally be thrown in prison indefinitely based on the decree of an anonymous panel appointed by the President. SOPA gives the government broad authority to block the internet, preventing the kinds of activities needed to organize and question some perceived injustices.

This is kind of a bummer obviously. On the other hand, what do you expect illegitimate wealth to do when you present a real challenge to them? Are they just going to lie back and let it happen without pushing back? Is that what they did in Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Brazil, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Italy, and on and on it goes? The suspension of freedom means what the people are doing is really scaring those in power, which means it's working. This is an inevitable step in the process toward progress. It will probably get worse before it gets better. That's how progress usually comes. We just need to keep doing what we are doing.