This issue is something I’ve been meaning to talk about since the start of this blog, and just as with the Censorship articles I’m here to take cheap shots at everyone and everything related to Copyright laws.

I must admit, the issue is complex.

While some parts of the issue are easy to argue against, there are parts, even foundations of the concept of intellectual property, which do in fact have some validity. To argue against them, it would be necessary to challenge the popular viewpoint. It will require finding an accurate definition of what “information”, or
indeed “intellect” refers to, and whether it can in fact be “owned”. It will also be necessary to question the notion of “entertainment”, and the value and meaning of it to society.

It is a philosophical issue. But, alas, as is usually the case, the word “is” is replaced by “should be” as large corporations, and inevitable human greed overpower us.

But enough of the waffle.

For now let’s look at the following hypothetical situation:

There is a race of highly-evolved, somewhat civilised beings known as “humans” on an average sized planet we shall call “Earth”. Now imagine one such being, named Al Gore, inventing a limitless global communications network, which would allow for the infinite sharing of information, knowledge, entertainment, pornography, etc. on a globally accessible source. Let’s call this the “Internets”.

Basically the issue here is about the progress of humanity. If not for ridiculous regulations and laws protecting the “rights” and “property” of the creator: of music, software etc., everyone could have legal access to just about every intellectual piece ever created.
It is already on the internet. Legalising it will just open up the huge tank of these resources to the world’s population.

Imagine a poorly funded public school, not having to pay for a Windows OS, giving children the opportunity to learn with technology, but spending money on things like facilities and teachers.

But how can Microsoft make money if nobody buys their products?
The point is getting people to use your product. If you have an enormous user-base, almost a monopoly on a giant market, the profits will flow quickly.
I, for example, have never bought a product from Google…

And will this decrease incentives, innovation, ingenuity and creativity or slow down advances in technology?
People will not get paid for creating their product, perhaps, they will not even get credit for inventing

Despite this popular notion, open source software has had great advances in the last few years, with many people working on projects which have perhaps overtaken the closed source alternatives in some regards.

While, looking at rights protected material: pop music has not taken leaps and bounds in originality in the last ten years.

In fact, pop producers now make a profit simply by producing what they choose to produce. People will automatically fleet to buy the latest album if it was simply played on the radio. No creativity involved.
The artists get paid, the producers get paid and the work is disproportionate to that level of pay.
Of course some people choose to pirate the single, or the album. But this only serves to increase the popularity of the artist, spread the word about their music, and this in turn would lead to somebody buying the CD.

Of course the RIAA or the MPAA will run scare campaigns to turn people away from pirating. Make up figures in their billions, about how much money was lost due to Copyright infringement, only serving to continue raising prices on their products, because they feel victimised.

Was any money actually lost because of piracy?
How many people had actually bought the product after downloading it? How many would otherwise have no access to this material were it not for piracy?
And could the quality of the content or price hike have anything to do with lost profits and less people willing to pay for their products?

The current penalties for pirating music or movies off the internet in many countries are so absurd that it now eclipses penalties for actually going to a store and stealing a record. A slap on the wrist for the latter, compared to thousands upon thousands of dollars for the other.
Harsh when you consider the preposterous claim of theft in the procedure. No one loses anything tangible, and all that is “stolen” is a duplicated strand of ones and zeros.
Other preposterous laws now include not being able to perform protected songs in public and regulations about where and with whom you can watch videos.

And while this is over-regulation, without any possibility of enforcement, is in fact absurd, will the elimination of IP laws altogether solve the problem?

Will the world just devolve into everyone taking credit for each others work?
It is not as if they do not try now. Fake works of art can be found all the time, yet it does not impede upon the industry.

Artists survive by selling tangible products of their work, not by selling rights to view the works. And with musicians, profts can be made by performing live concerts, from ticket sales, and selling merchandise.

Yet the heart of this issue, I believe, rests in the little guy – the “Lucy” of the… uhh, intellectual property stand. It is not the multinational pharmaceutical companies, nor the large budget film studios, for which Intellectual Property Laws were made.

What about the beginning artist, or musician who does not want his work to be stolen, discredited or used for commercial purposes:

Yet, is protecting the rights of someone’s piece of work justified?

An artist, regardless of the field, is someone who does what he does because he loves doing it. It is true that some choose to make a living being an artist, and yes, entertainment does have some value to our society. And regradless of how significant that value is, compared to other industries, when all is said and done, the purpose of entertainment, as well as education is, in fact, just that. To entertain and to educate. Not to make money, fuel unoriginality, limit the distribution of content and not to protect and regulate that content.

One’s intellectual works cannot be “owned”. And progess will be hindered until that is recognised.

powered by performancing firefox

Vote on Reddit 

Shout on Shoutwire 

Woo!

Isn’t it a great feeling to finally know that some completely irrelevant guy is now dead, and he won’t be escaping from his maximum security prison and going after your family?

Finally we can all relax and know that the Allied Forces have done a great job, and that its finally over because “it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy
that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and be an ally in the war
on terror”*.

Because, obviously, killing off an old hack who has been in US custody for some time, and who is unable to so much as move, yet is obviously capable of using his imaginary WMDs to blow up things, is such a great achievement in this war on terror.

The war in Iraq is going swell, so this could not have been some clever ploy to draw our attention away from the bloodshed, and towards the way we joyfully kill bad people.

And how many people actually feel this way?

Between his sentencing and the execution yesterday, too many people have been hailing it as a great conquest, hailing “good riddance” to the brutal dictator. Completely irrelevant was the fact that he had been “rid” back in 2003, where he became a fugitive, with absolutely no influence, and no possible way to commit more crimes. He was then again “rid”, when they captured him in late 2003. And yesterday, as if he were still some incredibly dangerous man, he was executed, ridding him for the third and final time, all three instances timed impeccably well. So well, even, that had George Bush not stated otherwise, it would seem that this was the workings of a President who could offer the people nothing – not peace, not victory – but the killing of a frivolous, downtrodden man.

Yet no less troubling is the fervour with which people, including most Western governments are celebrating the execution of Mr. Hussein. It is deeply disturbing, yet not in the least surprising, that the Commonwealth Government of Australia has itself fully supported the hanging, even praising America and Iraq, with Prime Minister Howard saying: “I believe there is something quite heroic about a country that is going through the pain and the suffering that Iraq is going through, yet still extends due process to somebody who was a tyrant and brutal suppressor and murderer of his people”.

The irony being, that Australia seemingly is quite opposed to Capital Punishment, except, of course, in the case of murderous dictators. And while several members of the EU have mentioned that they did not support the execution, Australia has not so much as made a peep about condemning the hanging.

And this hypocritical nature and “moral flexibility” is making Australia look futile in efforts to fight for human right around the globe.

Supposedly justice has been done here, because, admittedly he was tried, and sentenced according to the law in Iraq. However, relativism would also suggest, that if we cannot criticise the Iraqi law, then who are we to condemn the absurdity of Sharia law, and of stoning women because they allowed themselves to get raped? Or for that matter, who were we to remove Saddam from power in the first place?

Nevertheless, the issue at stake here is not doing “justice”, if it is indeed that, and not a revenge killing: Saddam has been influentially incapacitated for quite some time now.
The issue is about not compromising one’s moral stance because before them comes a “global villain”, an undoubtedly “bad” person, infamous worldwide. It does not matter that it is Saddam Hussein. What matters is that he is a person, captured by the supposedly “ethical” Western world. And if and when, one such person is found guilty, after a FAIR trial, he should rot in jail, not be barbarically executed.

* All quotes provided by Mr. G. W. Bush, unless otherwise specified

powered by performancing firefox

Vote on Reddit

Shout on Shoutwire

And while I will keep this particular post fairly succinct, I hope to return to this blog more frequently in the next few weeks.

What inspired me to come out of this recent hibernation was possibly the most absurd article I have read in quite a while.

It will not surprise most of my readership that this article comes from an American source, nor, sadly, should it.

What I am referring to here is this Denver Post article.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim

By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:12/06/2006 01:12:35 AM MST

Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act – in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.The Ogden, Utah, girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

There are several issues in this one piece, some of which make me feel awry, most – downright sick.

Right now, though, I will address just one.

I won’t talk of the astronomical threat of paedophilia and sexual assault to your children, which is fortunately being addressed by the mainstream media and the government, and which led to the formation of laws such as this.

I will not talk of the completely amoral, taboo act of sexual intercourse, which god clearly forbids.

Neither will I talk of how children must be protected, sheltered and monitored by the government, using whatever means possible.

I could write an editorial on each of the above.

No, what I will post-ironically discuss today is a simple concept, an oxymoron of sorts, known as Common Sense™. Something that has undoubtedly been lacking in Christianity, American politics, and not least in the American Justice System as just a brief glimpse here will show.

Let’s look at what happened here: consensual sex, between two pubescent teenagers, both of whom are now facing delinquency status and are being charged as sex offenders, touted as both perpetrator and victim.

What perpetration? What victimisation? Where and how is this present in this case? What part of these two terms are not irrelevant?

And more importantly when will education be based not on morality, but on fact?

How about the people in charge look at the case? How about they look at the context, the circumstances and the details? In every case, individually?

Sure, the laws exist (their usefulness, or requirement, is a different issue) but the world is not, and never has been black and white. There is always hectares of grey, ever increasing as concepts, societal norms and ethical ideas change and evolve. The book cannot be used to cover the grey, which is where people need to do the thinking for themselves.

And once this thinking gets done, then perhaps we will not have kids charged as sex offenders, burglars winning money after breaking into people’s houses or suing airline companies because New Jersey sucks:

powered by performancing firefox

Junaman thread: 1 2 3 4 5

Marc thread: 1

The Possibility of a God 1 2

As requested in the other thread for convenience, please post all further discussion here.

A state of over 4 million people, and home to undoubtedly the best city in the world – Melbourne.

Now, to give you a basic, subjectively biased introduction to Australian politics, and to answer a question posed by a reader of a previous post, Australia is, realistically, a two party system. Meaning that only one of two parties (or one long-standing, tightly bonded coalition of two parties), really has any chance whatsoever of winning. Right now our state government is led by the Labor Party, the “left” (read: right) to the “Liberal” (read: not liberal) right.

One thing, however, we do have, is the truly democratic concept of preferential voting.

No, it does not simply mean that all minor parties give their votes to whoever they choose. In fact, contrary to popular belief, it is you who can decide where your second, third, etc. preferences go.

This system makes it almost impossible for a left or right split to occur, leading the party across the floor to victory, and also one that allows you to vote for whoever you want, without the feeling that your vote has been wasted, or even detrimental to the popular candidate, who would be you second choice. In simple terms, if this system had been implemented in America, then Gore would have been president in 2000. I’m looking at you Nader.

Together with this, new legislation passed in Victoria before this election now allow proportional representation in the upper house of parliament, basically making it easier for minor parties to get seats in Parliament, and meaning that your vote for a minor party will not be wasted.

Now, while this entry may be a little late with the election coming up in just 9 short hours, it is my duty to tell you exactly who to vote for.

No, I will not tell you to vote for the Liberal/National Coalition, or for the Australian Labor Party. I will tell you to vote for the tree hugging hippies, who want to give away free heroin, legalise weed and make giant men out of straw…

The reason? This is exactly it:

Yes, it did screen on state television.
And yes, it’s almost as bad as some of the American smear campaigns, possibly ever worse.

Family First is the newly formed “family values” (read: Christian) party, and as you can see, they have no policies whatsoever… apart from burning synagogues, mosques and lesbians at the stake. They should be avoided like the plague.

The Liberals have offered “free public transport”, which seems to have been popular among some of the younger, and some of the ignorant voters. They have been sucked in. The “free” transport will be handed to you on a silver platter, with gold lining, after your taxes have been sufficiently raised, and the public transport system destroyed due to lack of funds.

Thus it is necessary to vote Greens, or Democrats, or Socialist Alliance.

A minor party has a very big chance of winning the balance of power in the upper house. These minor parties are not corrupted by big business. They will keep the checks and balances of our democracy, keep the other parties in line.

So tomorrow, do not vote for the big parties that will win regardless, vote Greens.

Make your vote count…

powered by performancing firefox

The terrorists that you have waged war against for oh so long are now in power, in your own country. What happened to fighting them abroad huh?

You ask: “What will happen now?”

Well, you will be dragged out of your home with a pair of large civil and economic liberty repressing tweesers.

They will take your whole paycheck, your house, your car and give it to the poor.
Oh, if you’re poor they’ll give you money, a car and a house… But it’ll be a crappy car, and the house will be missing the widescreen plasma tv, so you shouldn’t have voted for them.

Oh and some of your income will go towards such obsoleted things like…. you know… uhh… healthcare and education, maybe helping to pay off the astronomical national debt? But who cares really?

And the immorality continues. Imagine how the whole world will suddenly become homosexual, when gay marriage becomes legalised. Imagine big burly men walking down the street and molesting all of your precious little children. And the world police being taken over by rainbows and men holding hands. I’m sorry, but unfortunately you’re gonna need more than flower power when you take on Iran.

But before we get to Iran there’s another war that the terrorists don’t want to fight, in some other nearby country… They hate the troops so much they want to bring them all home to this rotten land called America.

So you knew all this, and yet you still couldn’t rig democracy even with 300 foot Diebold voting machine hacking poles?
You managed to hang Saddam, but where was Pelosi’s death sentence?
Dissapointing…

But what does this Democratic victory mean in the larger scale?

It means that Democracy could actually still work…
That the neo-cons are, quite frankly, back to step one in taking over America.
It also means that we must not get carried away when celebrating this victory, and not let our guard loose. The Democrats are are still one corrupt heap of politicians, and all of America’s problems will not be solved by this victory.

I could go off on a rant about how to better America, and perhaps in the future I will provide a guide to improving America’s democracy.
One that will include preferential voting, less lobbying, and a bigger variety of candidates, without the overriding aspect of party politics and paying for your votes.

In the meantime I’ll just celebrate by having gay sex in my government owned house. Public healthcare will pay for the AIDS treatment…

powered by performancing firefox

With the mid term elections just three days away, the Democrats are dead . Right?

John Kerry has gone and retarded his rhetoric, which was further retarded by the GOP rhetoric, and further yet spun, woven and contorted (read: retarded) by the media. No reply from the left has been issued.

Olbermann’s Special Comment from a few days ago.

That just about makes Iraq obsolete because the evil Democratic Party hates troops.

New voting machines have seen discrepancies, leave no paper trail, and will confuse the old folks. Some states have done their best to persuade poor people that voting is an unnecessary evil, going out of their way to make sure complications will arise – like requiring a Cayman Islands bank account number to vote. Or god forbid: a photo ID – I mean requiring a photo ID to vote is like requiring a mainstream publication of your name each time you visit a brothel. And yes, I did just compare voting to prostitution.

All political campaigns have been based on smear, like a large barrel of ghee enshrouding your television screens, newspapers, radios and interwebs.

So will the Republicans sweep through both houses, and are the Democrats dead?

Yes… unless you want them to be.

Don’t you ever feel that it’s stupid to contemplate whether something like Kerry’s botched joke will change the results of the election, when it is YOU who are voting. The American people get to decide what changes the election. And if you know that what Kerry said was a JOKE, and that Bush’s cronies are a bunch of morons, then don’t let that discount your valid Democratic vote.

Is it important? Does your vote matter?

No…

You’re just one of a massive 300 million people… only three of whom bother to vote.

You see, your vote doesn’t count, but it would count even less if you didn’t vote…
Just like you have to buy that lottery ticket each week – you could win! Except this won’t be money, but that warm fuzzy feeling you get deep inside of you when you realise that democracy works – and there’s still only a 14 million to one chance of that happening!

But will the Democrats be better for America? Are they not just two sides of the same coin?

According to these statistics: Yes. 34 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate voted to take away your freedoms.

But while that is true, what you must understand is that the Republicans are much, much worse. Do not think that not voting will make you look dignified, pal. Don’t take your democracy for granted or they’ll liberate you. The Democrats are all that you have – They are the better side of the coin.

The heads, to the GOP tail…gating downwards spiral into hell.

So as you would Satan, over god:

Vote Democrats… the less irritating of the TWO “Political Parties” in your great free land.

powered by performancing firefox

Well first in a line of shameless plugs, my friend Jesterballz has started his own blog: Cynicpad

He has gotten no shortage of hits (that’s an understatement), but I thought I’ll post this anyway just out of the kindness of my misanthropic heart.

He came out of the closet with his first post, showing flagrant homosexuality without a trace of morals.

Then he attempted to say that this guy disproves god:

YOU BASTARD! YOU KILLED GOD!

And with his latest post, said FUCK OFF to Christians…

…and good on him!

Keep at it.

powered by performancing firefox

Meet little Johnny:

He’s a hardened criminal who deserves to spend the rest of his life rotting in jail.

Canada has done its best to prevent Johnny from stealing (ones and zeros, that is), with our favourite superhero: Captain Copyright. But their site is now down… deservedly so.

However, fortunately the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education has the answer: http://lawforkids.org/

Taking a look at some of the “toons” on this wonderfully perspective website, we can see some classic works of art:

This guy thinks he’s not a car, but the cop knows better!

It’s comics like these, that make you want to have a helmet, eye protection and a permission slip…

Check them out and you’ll find cartoons about DUI, weapons, tagging, smoking, marijuana, shoplifitng, joyriding and fighting.

Now while these cartoons will totally get through to, like, children, I’ve taken the time, to get someone, to create my own, that might seem more appropriate…

From Pox over at Vektorr Studios

Yeah, that revoked license will teach him not to shoot cops!

Quite frankly – No…

If anyone is crazy enough to think that these mostly nonsensical cartoons will stop teenagers from committing crimes, then they are either seriously out of touch with normative progressive values of the younger generation, or work for government organisations. More probably both.

If you have a look at your typical teenager, they’ll look at these cartoons… and get the sudden urge to commit crime. You cannot attempt to educate children with lame cartoons.

The point, I feel, that needs to be made is that there is no need for this in our society. The government does not need to protect the children from the real world with this fearmongering (not to mention that some of these laws are absurd, mainly those involving revoked licenses). Most kids do some stupid things when they grow up, they do not all turn out to be criminals. They may end up as dole bludgers with a shoddy life… and move to Canada, but there’s nothing illegal about that (yet).

It’s this ultra-conservatism in this world that does not allow children to fully develop. We make these things seem taboo, instead of educating children about them, exposing them to it slowly.

We have to stop this idiocy and give parents some responsibility for their own children. It’s not up to busy government officials, to form committees and departments, to delegate tasks to people, to find other people, that will find people, who are willing to go and hire writers and artists, who will procrastinate over crappy little cartoons, which will make it into the unbeknownst corners of the internet, after responsibility was delegated to someone, to look for… you get the point.

This leads on to the paranoia that I have seen from authority (parents, schools, police alike), which creates this protectionist nature.

There are schools where I live, for example, that have banned loitering. Loitering not inside the school, but in the CBD, as many students travel home via the city. That’s right, standing around in a single spot in a public location is now illegal.
What’s more is that schools have alerted the presence of police officials to loiterers, tying up public resources, shifting attention towards people standing still with no purpose, and away from real criminals – yes, they do exist, and no, they are not teenagers who have nothing better to do than stand around…

To conclude, the solution is quite simple really. How about spending more money on the education system, improving that rather than creating cartoons that will have no positive influence on anybody, ever.

I’ll finish with a quote from Bill Maher:

There are 12 year old boys in this country who can’t even spell the name of the teacher they’re having sex with.

P.S FUCK YOUTUBE

powered by performancing firefox

This one about the fear-mongering (read terrorising) of the Republicans about the terrorist threat.

Transcript below the fold

And lastly, tonight, a Special Comment on the advertising of terrorism.

The commercial, you have already seen, it is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.

It is from the Republican National Committee, it shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. It offers quotes from them, all as a clock ticks ominously in the background. It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001, his dubious claim that he had purchased suitcase bombs. The quotation is followed by sheer coincidence, no doubt, by an image of a massive explosion. “These are the stakes” appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson’s infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964, “Vote November 7^th“.

There is a cheap Texas Chainsaw Massacre quality to the whole thing. It also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn’t think about, except, obviously, when elections were near. Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time have laughed out loud, but not everyone. And therein lies the true threat to this country.

The dictionary definition of the word ‘terrorize’ is simple and not open to misinterpretation: “To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; coerce by intimidation or fear.” Note please that the words ‘violence’ and ‘death’ are missing from that definition. For the key to terrorism is not the act-but the fear of the act. That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotape statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.

But why is the Republican Party imitating them? Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; the Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear.

The Republicans are paying to have the messages of bin Laden and the others broadcast into your home! Only the Republicans have a bigger bankroll.

When last week, the CNN network ran video of an insurgent in Iraq evidently stalking and killing an American soldier, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mr. Hunter, Republican of California, branded that channel quote “the publicist for an enemy propaganda film,” and added that CNN used it to sell commercials. Another California Republican, Representative Brian Bilbray, called the video quote “nothing short of a terrorist snuff film.”

If so, Mr. Bilbray, then what in the hell is your party’s new advertisement? And Mr. Hunter? CNN using the film to sell commercials? Commercials? You have adopted bin Laden and Zawahiri as spokesmen for the Republican National Committee.

‘To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear’

By this definition, the people who put these videos together: first, the terrorists and then, the administration, whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking, they are the ones terrorizing you.

By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda, but the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party.

Eleven presidents ago, the chief executive reassured us that ‘we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.’ His distant successor has wasted his administration, insisting there is nothing we can have but fear itself.

The Vice President, as recently as this month, was caught campaigning again with the phrase “mass death in the United States”. Four years ago, it was the now Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, rationalizing Iraq with quote, “we don’t want to be…the smoking gun to be the mushroom cloud.” Days later, Mr. Bush himself told an audience that quote “we cannot wait the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

And now we have this cheesy commercial, complete with images of a faked mushroom cloud and implications of mass death in America.

This administration has derived benefit and power from terrorizing the very people it claims to be protecting from terror. It may be the oldest trick in the political book: scare people into believing they are in danger and only you can save them. Lyndon Johnson used it to bury Barry Goldwater. Joe McCarthy leaped from obscurity on its back. And now the legacy has come to President George W. Bush.

Of course, the gruel of fear is getting thinner and thinner, is it not, Mr. President? And thus, more and more of it needs to be made out of less and less actual terror. After last week’s embarrassing internet hoax about dirty bombs in footballs stadiums, the one your Department of Homeland Security immediately disseminated to the public, a self-described former CIA operative named Wayne Simmons cited the fiasco as quote “The, and I mean, the perfect example of the President’s Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the NSA Terrorist Eavesdropping Program-how vital they are.”

Frank Gaffney, once a respected Assistant Secretary of Defense and now the president of something called The Center for Security Policy added “one of the things that I hope Americans take away from this is not only that they’re gunning for us. Not just in a place like Iraq, but truly worldwide.”

Of course, the “they” to which Mr. Gaffney referred, turned out to be a lone 20-year-old grocery bagger from Wisconsin named Jake. A kid trying to one-up some loser in an internet game of ‘chicken.’ His threat referenced seven football stadiums, at which dirty bombs were to be exploded yesterday. It began with the one in New York City, even though there isn’t one in New York City and though the attacks were supposed to be simultaneous, four of the games were scheduled to start at 1:00 pm Eastern time and the others at 4:00 pm Eastern time. Moreover, the kid said that he had posted the identical message on forty websites since September. We caught him in merely about six weeks, even though the only way he could be less subtle, less stealthy and less of a threat was if he bought an advertisement on the Superbowl telecast.

Mr. Bush, this is the what–100^th plot your people have revealed that turned out to be some nonsensical misunderstanding or the fabrications of somebody hoping to talk his way off a waterboard in Eastern Europe? If, Mr. President, this is the kind of crack work your new ad implies that only you, and not the Democrats, can do, you, sir, need to pull over and ask for directions. The real question, of course, Mr. Bush, is why did your Department of Homeland Security even release that information in the first place? It was never a serious threat. Even the first news accounts quoted a Homeland spokesman as admitting strong skepticism. The kind of strong skepticism which most government agencies address before telling the public, not afterwards.

So that leaves two options, Mr. President: the first option, you and your Department of Homeland Security don’t have the slightest idea what you’re doing here. Thus, contrary to your flip-flopping between saying, “we’re safe” and saying, “but we’re not safe enough”, and contrary to the Vice President’s swaggering pronouncements about the lack of another attack since 9/11, the last five years HAS been just an accident.

Or there’s the second option: your political operatives leaked this nonsense for the same reason your political operatives put out that commercial. To scare the gullible.

Obviously, the correct answer, Mr. Bush, is: all of the above.

There are some of us who could forgive you, for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party’s existence to “Death and the Tax Us.” It’s cynical and barbaric, but after all, it may be merely the extension of the gutter politics to which you have subscribed since you sidled over from baseball and the business world of other people’s money.

But to forgive you for terrorizing us, we would have to believe that you somehow competent in keeping others from terrorizing us. Yet last week, construction workers repairing a subway line in New York City were cleaning out an abandoned manhole on the edge of the WTC site, when they stumbled on the horrific and impossible: human remains from 9/11. Bones and fragments, eighty of them. Some as much as a foot long. The victims had been lying literally in the gutter for five years and five weeks. The families and friends of each of the 2,749 dead, who had been grimly told in May 2002, that there were no more remains to be found, were struck anew as if the terrorism of that day had just happened all over again.

And over this weekend, they have found still more remains. And now this week will be spent looking in places that should have already been looked at a thousand times, five years ago.

For all the victims in New York, Mr. Bush, the living and the dead, it is a touch of 9/11 all over again. And the mayor of this city, who called off this search four and a half years ago is a Republican. The governor, with whom he conferred, is a Republican. The House of Representatives, Republican. The Senate, Republican. The President, Republican. And yet you can claim that you and you alone can protect us from terrorism?

You can’t even recover our dead from the battlefield. The battlefield in an American city. When we’ve given you five years and unlimited funds to do so.

While citing a Military Commissions Act so monstrous that it has now been criticized by even the John Birch Society, you told us, Mr. Bush, quote, “there is nothing we can do to bring back the men and women lost on September 11^th, 2001, yet we’ll always honor their memory and we will never forget the way they were taken from us.” Except of course, for the ones that have been lying under a manhole cover for five years.

Setting aside the fact that your government has done nothing else for those five years but pat itself on the back about terror, while waging pointless war on the wrong enemy in Iraq and waging war on the cherished freedoms in America, just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government in time of crisis in this country’s history.

These are the stakes indeed, Mr. President. You do not know what you are doing. And the commercial, the one about which Zawahiri might say, “hey, pretty good, we love your choice of font style,” all that further needs to be said about that is to add three words to Shakespeare. Mr. President, you and that advertisement of terror are full of sound and fury, signifying–and competent at–nothing.

powered by performancing firefox

America, this is an apple:

You eat them.

I suggest you memorise what these look like, and go buy one. They’re available at your local FRUIT and VEGETABLE store.

America, this is not an apple:

Also available in blueberry flavour!

You do not eat “this”.

That’s right: sausages… wrapped in chocolate chip pancakes… on a stick

Saturated lipids covered in fatty cholesterol, topped with cancer inducing radiation… that’s just swell.

Funny when you look at all these people complaining about obesity epidemics, blaming them on the most ridiculous things, yet allowing shit like this to plague our arteries and pancakes and sausage sticks to stab us right in our chests.

Unfortunately this has been on the market for a while: just without chocolate chips… Along with a full range of other healthy Jimmy Dean products.

By the way, just to let you know, the Jimmy Dean website passes this abominable chocolatechippancakewrappedsausageonastick as a “hearty breakfast”

Jimmy Dean Pancakes & Sausage
Jimmy Dean full-flavored sausage inside a sweet pancake covering – it’s fun on a stick. Just pop these sweet treats in the microwave for less than 2 minutes and you’ll have a hearty breakfast or snack that’s not only filling but easy to eat and enjoy.

Now all of you will come out and scream at me that not all Americans are fat, and that I’m a stereotyping attention whore, who has bigoted anti-American views. But no one will care what you think because you’re American.

The fact of the matter is, as the title suggests, that Americans all – yes, every single one of them – eat this. That’s undeniable fact, infallible logic, because obviously Americans are fat and stupid.

Case in point: most of them will take this seriously.

But please, please stop to wonder why it is that this product is available in stores in AMERICA and not anywhere else in the world?

No, the answer is not “American innovation”

I mean, I’m sure that Africa would love to pump some fat into their bloodstream, but why only America?

Why must you have a customer range big enough for products like these to allow them to be sold in your stores, to your children, while you complain about them being fat. But your own fat ass is too lazy to get up and do anything about it…

Here’s a quick tip: Don’t Fucking Eat And You Won’t Get Fat™

EDIT: Found this great video (tip to Raincoaster)

powered by performancing firefox

including a Special Comment, which will not dissapoint…

It’s so good it almost makes you forget about the beginning of the end…

Transcript:

Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.

We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…

While his man-in-charge…

General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen — he is still a Japanese.”

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each, was a betrayal of that for which the President who advocated them, claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced, survived him, and…

…one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900-thousand votes… though his Presidential campaign was conducted entirely… from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States, to the citizens of the United States, whose lives it ruined.

The most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been, only human.

We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”

We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets, was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute… the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always… wrong.

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done, to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “Unlawful Enemy Combatants” and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” and ship you somewhere – anywhere.

And if you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was President, or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was President, or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant” — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. “In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.”

‘Presumed innocent,’ Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

‘Access to an attorney,’ Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

‘Hearing all the evidence,’ Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies, that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” …you told us yesterday… “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas Corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”

And did it even occur to you once sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 — that with only a little further shift in this world we now know — just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died —

Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, sir, all of them — as always — wrong.

…Good Night, and Good Luck

powered by performancing firefox

Rice labelled the journalist a “godless sodomite” and “tratorous terrorist enabler”, as the journalist asked her the tough questions about U.S.S. Cole and the Bush administration’s failure to find Bin Laden in it’s first 8 months in office.

Rice stormed off halfway through the interview, after verbally assaulting Wallace, and refused to continue.

“She completely lost it! I asked her genuine questions and she replied with undeserved acrimony”, said Wallace in his commentary about the interview, which will be screened in its entirety on Fox tonight.

Rightyo then…

Stay tuned for updates

powered by performancing firefox

BERLIN (Reuters) – Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who played a key role in ending the Cold War, said the United States had squandered an opportunity to improve global politics after the Cold War, a paper said on Friday.

In comments that were among the harshest he has made about the United States, Gorbachev compared U.S. foreign policy to one of the deadliest diseases on the planet — AIDS.

“Today our American friends are suffering from an illness worse than AIDS. And I would say this is the victor’s complex,” Gorbachev was quoted as saying in an interview with the Netzzeitung.

Unable to extricate itself from its Cold War mentality, the United States was playing a dwindling role in world politics, while Russia, China, Brazil, Europe, India and Japan were becoming stronger, Gorbachev said.

North Korea, which said on Monday it had successfully completed a nuclear test, was an example. Only China and Russia were in a position to handle Pyongyang, he said.

Washington will in future have to act less on its own and get used to a position of diminished importance, he said.

“The Americans will have to understand that in future they will have to cooperate and make decisions jointly, instead of just always wanting to give orders,” Gorbachev said.

He said the United States and other Western countries had missed an opportunity to make the world a better place after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 ushered in the end of communism.

“At that point, the West focused more on its geopolitical interests,” Gorbachev said, adding that Western countries had been more interested in cashing in on the “unbridled burst of globalization” that followed the end of the Cold War than in improving the international political climate.

This former player in the game of global politics, now activist, has said what we are all thinking deep down. The current direction of the world goes against very basic humanist policies, and we can all foresee a downwards spiral in global affairs.

Gorbachev is frighteningly right. The end of the cold war was really the beginning of the modern political, technological era, and benefit has not come from political actions of the White House since the demise of communism.

There is a need for change, no matter how well off anyone thinks they are…

Watch your freedoms dematerialise before your very own eyes, ebb into nothingness…

powered by performancing firefox

First, you will notice the amazingly attention-grabbing title of this piece. Yes, you stupid Americans, it is grievously over-generalised. I KNOW this, and you do not have to point this out to me.

Well, where to begin?

First I’d like everyone to take a look here and here and here and here and here.

I could go on, but I’ve made my point… Only two things are common in all the articles linked to above:

1. They occurred in America, perpetrated by Americans
2. They involved guns

We eliminate the second statement almost instantly, as it would be completely incongruous to think that guns may be the issue at hand.

After all guns don’t kill people:

That’s just absurd…

So, considering that I, along with many of you, believe that guns don’t kill people, we’re left with one option: Americans kill people.
Well, it’s gotta be one or the other, so all you gun-toting red-necks are gonna have to pick.

Considering that this infallible logic is somewhat hypothetically askew (and I’m not suggesting that it is), and Americans don’t kill people, that leaves us with some compromising to do.

I’ll put forward the next most logical conclusion:

Guns don’t kill people, high-velocity projectiles do.

Hence as a good American, you must boycott the ammunition industry and support a ban on all sales of live rounds of ammo around the world. This is the obvious solution, because finding and destroying the world’s supply of ammunition is so much easier than ridding it of its guns.

So keep as many fucking guns as you need:
They Can Take Your Ammo, But They’ll Never Take Your Guns^TM

…Or protect your children by giving them more guns:

[/being a gungho nut-job]

Now in all seriousness, if you have ever said that guns don’t kill people, then you are a fucking moron.

By saying: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, you are strongly implying that either it is perfectly fine for people to be doing so, or if it not fine, then we should get rid of people.

Yes, it is a person behind the gun, the person’s brain that made the decision, the person’s finger that pulled the trigger, the person’s arm that absorbed the recoil, and the person’s head that needs to be examined.
Yes, it is people that kill people…

Using guns.

No a gun is not a “tool”. The sole purpose of a firearm is to hurt or quite possibly kill another living being. It was created for just that purpose, and today it still has no other use.

Knives cut things, crowbars help you break into cars, frying pans are used for frying things, shovels for shovelling, etc., etc…
I am not suggesting we control the use of every dangerous object, just those that have no other purpose but ot kill.

Guns do not protect, they just kill.

Sure it would be easy for you to say that crime rates went down in neighbourhoods where gun ownership is mandatory… just like you could say that crime rates went down in Germany under Hitler: a completely self-censored society, living without freedom due to fear of retribution (in this case the risk of getting shot).

They act as a false deterrent, allowing people to think that they are invincible when they have their gun, when all it takes is a bigger gun, or a better shot, to have them dead. They convey the illusion that one is more powerful with a gun and thus make it easier for someone to commit a crime, encouraging people to do so.
The government can portray this false “safety through guns” attitude and then have the people on their puppet strings. Able to take away all their other civil rights and freedoms with no political or judicial consequences, while the citizens hug their beloved… firearms.

The fact of the matter is you feel safer in a society with no guns, this coming from first hand experience.

Ok, so perhaps you cannot guarantee that no one can obtain a gun, but it would be a hell of a lot harder in a place where guns are unlawful and not sold on every street corner…

Just because you cannot control something, does not mean it must be legalised.

And not of least importance, guns cause much more damage, direct or collateral, to others.

In a spur of the moment decision, during a dispute, disagreement or a fight, pulling a trigger would leave someone for dead, or at best critically injured, before the offender has realised what he has done. Had he not been carrying a gun, he cold have knocked him out cold with his fist, or whacked him over the head with a shovel causing a mild concussion, before regaining his cool, and dashing off before the cops can get there…

Yes, I have a level of respect for the American Constitution, but your right to obtain bear arms must be revoked. It is cruel, inhumane and degrading to a civilised society.

Guns kill people.

I feel that this is somehow not finished, but I cannot think of what more to say, so I hope we can address more of this issue in the comments, and if not I will write a second part for this article, when more comes to mind.

Faux continued its GOP cocksucking(?), labelling a disgraced Republican as a Democrat. (this one was too good not to post):

It really is an easy way to solve problems for the Republican party, with their propaganda machine in full swing: label everyone who doesn’t like you as a Democrat…

Our good friend Keith Olbermann had this to say:

Fact of the matter is, whether Fox fucked up, or are deliberately misinforming the people (which last time I checked was a crime), they did not admit their mistake, did not even acknowledge it, choosing to instead show a repeat of the telecast with the Information Bar removed.
This is definitely not the first time old Faux have been caught lying: they have several times now even changed the transcripts of their speeches to cover up any form of mistruth spouted by their reporters or any form of dissent spoken by their interviewees, but this is definitely one of the most disturbing pieces of media bias I have seen in a long time.

Another gallant performance came from Keith last night, where in his Special Comment, he exposed the bigoted lies that Bush has made about the Democrats.

This video and the transcript can be found over at Crooks and Liars. I will link to the actual video when I can find it on youtube.

EDIT:

Another eloquent editorial from Olbermann, showing what this administration would do to avoid taking responsibility for any of their faults, and there have been plenty.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you re-direct at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, sir.

It is your own — before 9/11 – (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party’s power. And obviously you’ll sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats piled atop lies about Iraq which were piled atop lies about your preparations for Al-Qaeda.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries.

As crushing. As immovable.

They are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop — if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same — you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country’s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

—
Good night, and good luck.

UPDATE: More here

EDIT: Another article I was directed to here

This is something that my country’s media neglected to tell me about in any great form of detail. Sure, I knew these were out there but seeing them first-hand makes you really wonder WHAT THE FUCK THIS ADMINISTRATION IS STILL DOING IN OFFICE.

Yes, it contains disturbing images, but it is something that every single one of you, regardless of nationality or political affiliation should see. And don’t any of you dare look away, you allowed this shit to happen, pay the price.

I’m going to self-censor myself at that… never know what Bush could do to me… (well, actually I do: it involves detaining me with no charges and no right of appeal, for however long he wants)

This is what the government of America does. A government based on freedom, democracy, civil and human rights. The proudest nation in the whole world.

This is what that government has recently advocated and allowed through legislation.

This is what America’s civilised country supports…

Not taking any action to find who is at fault would do no one any good, and would not help prevent another similar attack. Being someone who was directly affected by the attacks does not excuse you from asking for the truth and does not give you permission to mourn apathetically. In fact it gives you a bigger responsibility to question why and who…

Something so disturbing and unholy that you would definitely be shocked to find it on national television… until you realised it was American national television.

Yes, you heard that right… she just compared the watching of a TV show with the support of an inhumane action.

And I completely agree with her… if only because of my burning desire to watch her get painfully, painfully tortured.

I mean, if Americans love to watch actors get “tortured” on television then they would obviously support some unimportant Arab scum getting water boarded so that they would confess to have blown themselves up seven years ago, killing INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.. while still being alive today

Obviously no one will care about them, because they’re not actors.

There are so many absurd analogies you can make between TV fiction and reality to completely ridicule this statement… that I will try to list as many as I possibly can.

Americans like Big Brother so they would support being locked watched by cameras in every aspect of your life.

Americans that watch Fear Factor love drinking urine and frequently snack on cow phalluses.

Americans that love the Sopranos support the mafia and organised crime.

Americans that watch Prison Break would do anything to get incarcerated, just so they could break out.

Americans who have seen Star Trek take weekends off to laze about on nearby planets.

Americans who like American Idol enjoy being sung to death (oh wait).

Americans that watch Happy Tree Friends like to be slaughtered in wacky, yet incredibly painful ways.

Americans who like That 70′s Show are live in the 1970s.

Americans who watch documentaries about Hitler are Nazi scum.

Americans who like Charmed believe in demons and witches.

Americans that enjoy watching the O’Reilly Factor are intelligent.

Americans that like cartoons believe that their own bodies are animated.

Americans that watch porn like to rape women and film it on tapes, while women are all too happy to please them.

Americans who watch Fox News support the current administration.

Please feel free to add more

I cannot express how much I hate uneducated unintelligible reporters, and not just ones like O’Reilly or Coulter, but completely ignorant ones with no views of their own, who just sit there and look pretty and recite what they are told by the government…  Talk show hosts and the like.

Reminds me of  the incoherent blabberings of this “reporter” for youtube that I discovered recently:

The comment with profanity was mine in case you were wondering.

People like that do not deserve a place on television. They don’t even have a purpose there… they’re not brainwashing anyone, just dumbing down what people see on TV, slowly turning their brain into a mush.

Perhaps that is the government’s plan…

Thanks to the new WordPress support for Odeo embedding, I will now upload this song from one of my favourite artists in years gone by.

This is Weird Al’s new song from his new album Straight Outta Lynwood, which is pretty damn good.

This final song caps off the stunning album, and will undoubtedly reach cult status in the near future, as the anthem of this pirating generation. ARRRR!
The song basically spells out how I feel about file-sharing, in a way only Weird Al can.

The RIAA and MPAA are evil corporations who don’t care about the music, and artists who support this middleman deserve to be screwed over in as painful a way as possible.

That’s why you should buy this great album at Amazon!

Who am I kidding, just download it off BitTorrent or P2P…

Entertain for the purpose of entertaining!

I tried to find a shorter clip of this, but this is all I could get. The Moment of Zen is right at the end, so wait for it.

It is interviews like these that both Clinton and Olbermann had every right to get angry for. They had every right to attack that monkey calling himself a news reporter.

Taking up Condi’s precious time to talk about her personal life and dating habits is not playing hard ball… In fact, nobody cares who the fuck she’s dating, nor how you would ask her out on a date. (I really don’t see why you would, but whatever floats your boat)

When the media start asking the right questions of both sides is when we’ll stop slandering Fox journalists.

I’d like to start off with this, the interview with this great man:

I tried uploading this, but either the file was too large, or the uploading tool here on WordPress was not working. For some reason Faux News doesn’t want these on Youtube: they showed it on national television, so why the fuck don’t they want anyone else to see it? (oh right, the in built comment feature.)

If this gets censored off Youtube, there are several places in the liberal blogosphere where you can find this interview, most notably here.

Obviously the media focused on Clinton’s mad rage as he bashed poor Wallace to a pulp with no remorse.

This supposed “free media” in America is incredibly dissapointing.

The fact of the matter is, looking at the current situation, he had every right, not only to bash Wallace to a pulp, but to flail his arms in all directions throwing fireballs at the current administration.

The Daily Show summed it up best with their clip of this interview, followed by an interview, where Condoleezza Rice was asked about who she was dating.

But the purpose of this here entry was to show you this:

Keith, you are a legend!

Someone unafraid to speak the truth, even if that truth may go over the heads of much of the population.

Good night, and good luck. The Edward R. Murrow line is deservedly yours, as you have been able to stand up for the rest of us, with a position on American television, and speak of the wrongs of this administration – the first to do so in the almost 6 years of the Bush reign.

All those who have criticised him, Jon Stewart puts it best: “who the fuck are you?”

I am tired of Faux News and obCNN constantly fucking with the minds of the American, and sometimes global people. For example, the news stations in Australia mostly get there news from these stations, and report everything they are told – this country’s media is in fact primitive.

Don’t buy into this bullshit.

We must disenthrall ourselves

P.S.

From 11 September to Today, the president has given three major speeches or press conferences, tried to break the Geneva Convention, and made a third war in his six year reign all the more likely. And all conveniently before the mid-term elections, for which he must try ever so desperately to regain some support, by scaremongering and bringing more fear into the minds of his brainwashed supporters.

And it seems to have worked, with his approval rating rebounding by 5 points, to 44%. Still a way to go, fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately)

It all began on 11 September 2006, when Bush gave his supposedly depoliticised address to the nation*
in which he was supposed to pay respects to the men and women who died “at the hands of terrorists”. Instead he was reduced to spreading hate of the enemy, and talking about the fear that America still faces.

“Today we are safer, but we are not yet safe.”

“The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.”

“The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”

“This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization.”(sic)

“The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did; but not in the way the terrorists intended.” (This one’s here just for the connotations)

Just some of the trash he managed to spout in just 15 minutes. The full transcript is linked to above.

Effectively he shrouded the people of his nation with terror. The same terror he is at war against.

He called the war in Iraq a “decisive ideological struggle” and “a struggle for civilization”(sic) – one involving a minute part of the US Army, and lacking the resources of even a medium scale war.

The President put America’s safety on the line, and then said there is absolutely nothing he could do to help… and the people listened.

Next, just four days later, Dubbya was at it again at a News Conference in the Rose Garden*

Here, he ranted on about torture of detainees that are in secret CIA prisons, and that were recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay or “interrogation of detainees tactics” and the “Detainee Treatment Act”:

“Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s like _ it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

He referred particularly to one line of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, saying it was “too vague” and “wide open to interpretation”. He wants it “clarified”…
Article 3 actually encompasses a whole lot more. In a lot more detail.

“In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment (sic) pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

Actually, to be damn sure, let me remind you that the whole Third Convention, dedicated to the treatment of prisoners of war, has 143 articles, plus some… More than one of them touching on the issue of torture.

Unfortunately the bill redefining Article 3 still has a chance of passing before the Mid-Terms in just under 2 months.

In this press conference Bush also said:

“It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior (sic) of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Thank You Mr. Olbermann

Unfortunately, once again, the people listened…

Several days later Mr. Bush was interviewed by Today co-host Matt Lauer:

In this interview he spouted more bullshit about how torture is “protecting families” and preserving “our safety”. But when asked of the techniques used on terrorists in secret CIA prisons (which, by the way, he discarded as being unimportant: “so what”), he said that he was not going to talk about tactics used, because the “terrorists could adjust”.

That’s right, adjust to torture: they would coat the testicles in rubber to absorb electricity or… err… grow gills?

Or…

…maybe he has something to hide??? WOAH!

Another 5 days later, September 19, Bush faced the world to speak at the floor of The UN General Assembly*. With all subtleties forgotten, Bush spread some more TERROR. He told this assembly the same thing he did three years ago, just before declaring his second, this time facing his next randomly chosen nation: Iran.

“To the people of Iran, the United States respects you. We respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and your many contributions to civilization(tired of writing “(sic)” for every time Americans misspell something).”

…Just don’t feel too bad if we try to invade you and blow you up.

Although, right after this he said:

“Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed. It must be chosen.”

“My country desires peace.”

Then why the fuck would you go to WAR in order to IMPOSE FREEDOM on several different countries?

And more disturbingly, his final words:

“God bless.”

Once again, the people listened…

I’ll leave you tonight with this one final clip:

* All transcripts provided by CQ Transcriptions

Obviously this concept is a miserable failure.

Let us look at the UN: the current global “overseeing” body that we have.

In fairy-tale la la land, it’s led or “Secretary-Generaled” by this guy:

And:

Basically some coloured people from Developing Nations… who are rich. Great representation.

In reality though, it’s led by this guy:

Seems quite obvious now, because a black guy could never lead such a large organisation… (Blacks: please note the obvious sarcasm in the previous statement)

This rampaging monkey of a man, can do anything he feels like, because his country makes up most of the financial part of this United Nations thing.

Basically what this “overseeing body” does is ensure that human rights and civil liberties are upheld worldwide, give economic aid to countries in need or after disasters, provide “humanitarian assistance and individual development, create treaties and some form of international law, stop countries randomly invading others, assist in “arms control and disarmament”, and go on wacky “peacekeeping” mission worldwide… That is, unless your country, or its corrupt government, doesn’t want them to.

And that chimp guy up top certainly doesn’t… together with other crazed dictators worldwide.

Wow, such a powerful organisation!

So the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, is basically obsolete…. and their website is ugly

So now let’s look at this “World Government”

It will be again be run by one of these Dubbya types, be ignored by militant groups in other countries, but it will also not do anyone any good.

Even in actual countries today, centralisation of government has made large portions of nations impotent, as policies have favoured rich cores of a country, while allowing the standard of living in the periphery to drop and drop. A prime example of this would be India, where the poorer regions have suffered because of Unitarism.

Now imagine a global government, where an international law making body has to control both the rich and the ultra-poor and think of the influence imbalance between the powers, which would lead to an ever growing split between the two classes.

The different forms of government in these countries will also cause massive problems, with rebel groups rebelling (really?) against the system and branching off on their own.

Some countries, such as North Korea or the U.S.A. were just meant to live in complete oppression, while Scandinavia can bask in their civil liberties. These things will not just change – the brainwashing occurring in totalitarian regimes cannot be easily overthrown. And forcing the rich to give away their money is like taking candy from a baby (no that easy, eh?)

So, while humanism suggests we should all join together peacefully, and it is philosophically sound that we do such a thing, the greed and intolerance of mankind will never allow this to happen.

Wrong…

Sure I’ll pay respects. I will feel some sympathy for the innocent (Democrat-voting) Americans (foreigners) who died on the planes, in the towers and in the middle of nowhere.

I will remember those who died at the hands of their own elected government, while the people re-elected it for a second term with a majority in both houses.

Conspiracy or not, screw all those scientific facts. Look at it simply.

The government had the means, the opportunity (they’re a damn government for fucks sake) and they had something to gain (so did the Jews), motive.

Watch Loose Change

Warning: video duration – 1h 22m

Were they solely involved? Does it matter?

If your government was complicit, regardless of the amplitude of complicity, in a plot to kill their own people, wouldn’t you like to know?

Wouldn’t that be enough for them to go on trial for crimes against humanity, the President to be impeached… or at least be enough to not warrant a re-election with a bigger majority?

Yes, that’s right. The Bush shenanigans led to him being re-elected for a second term, able to do anything his party feels with a majority in both houses, and no possibility of being elected again, unless they change some document, the Constitution or something…
Yes, you, The American People voted him in…

Blah, blah, blah.. you say you didn’t vote for him? You say your people are misrepresented?

Well guess what, the definition of Democracy is a “government representing the people”, but we obviously know that the USA isn’t a democracy.

More like an Autocratic Theocracy, protecting your rights as stated in The Incoherent Ramblings of Jesus H. Christ.

I’ll leave you today on a disturbing thought.

Looks like Bush’s approval rating is at an all time low…

And other public opinion polls show this:

Time for another major terrorist attack?

From your fucked up values and religious whacks like your president, to your arrogant “I love oil” nature and your love for attempting to fuck other countries up with your “superior” defence force. I hate the way you think that America is responsible for all good in this world. You’re not.

You did not invent human rights, you did not invent sliced bread, or the wheel, AND JESUS WAS NOT BORN IN TEXAS. NOR WAS HE WHITE.

AND HE DID NOT SLEEP WITH YOUR SISTER. Although I’m sure you did.

I hate you so much that I want to draw a tan^-1(1) with my fist to your face. (NO, YOU DID NOT INVENT TRIANGLES)

I hate how you complain about the price of oil, while you rape your planet with your fat ass, McDonald’s eating, gas guzzling fuck Hummers of hell.

I hate how you feel the need to liberate random countries from “oppression” and instill your proud and wonderful freedom and democracy.

I also hate your “Patriot Act” which effectively removes all forms of freedom and democracy from your country… and allows your government to go all fascist on you ass, while you sit in your homes and hate gays, blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, the Spanish, Cubans, Latinos (that’s ignorance for you)

I hate how you destroy the English language using the letter z in random places, and leaving out u in others. Your education system is fucked up. NO ONE TEACHES CREATIONISM ANY MORE.

You piss me off by being the most religious country in the Western world, with your conservative values hindering the progress of mankind.

And fuck you and your nuclear warheads trying to fuck this planet up, while making sure to condemn any Arab that ever tries to enrich Uranium (ooh laa dee daa)

I hate your conservative, Jewish-owned media with your O’Reillys and Coulters spouting pro-Bush, Christian (figure that?) propaganda, and telling you that Bush taking away your freedom is the greatest liberty you will ever receive.

I hate the Westboro Baptist Church, allowed to exist because of your fundie values and gay hating economics.

I hate your consumerist whore views, buying things just because rich guys in suits tell you to.

And I hate your disgusting superiority complex, segregating all races except Americans (ye, that’s a race) and fucking over your neighbours to the south by not allowing them to speak Spanish, and thinking that you are far better than Canada. You’re not.

I hate your “obesity epidemic” while people in Africa starve. JUST DON’T FUCKING EAT.

And also, I hate the way you stereotype yourself so much that I can go off on rants such as these.

So FUCK YOU

I am indeed to referring to things like this:

noob666
“wow, i reckon its impossible to know the truth, believe wateva u wana believe, no point arguein about it tho- right?”

or:

Samantha
“Honestly, I don’t understand why so many people are out there to bash christians as well as religion. Why is it sooo important for people to disprove God, or rant about how God’s teachings are way off.”

Now I will explain why there is a point in arguing about it, why it is sooo important for people to disprove god or rant about how god’s teaching are way off.

Let’s look at the following situation:

We choose to ignore religion (or for that matter anything bad in our society), this appeasement leads to them continuing their beliefs and practices, this leads to continued discrimination against groups of people that they hate, and then another religious war breaks out. We are stuck like sheep in a flock, almost as much as them following their blind faith.

God is your shepherd – he wants to breed you for wool and meat

We have done nothing to stop them, and hence the problem continues.

No, as you might think, the problem is not god, it is not about knowing the truth about his existance. It is about realising that religion is causing problems and questioning it, because without questioning, protesting or condemning it, nothing will ever change.

You see, the only way mankind has progressed has been through challenging the status quo, not being a sheep, sometimes unfortunately, that has been through war.
Revolutions have been caused by revolts, changes in legislation – from people advocating and pursuing their ideals, their rights.

Human progress has not come from sitting still and ignoring politics.

It’s all part of God’s plan!!! :):)

God’s plan??

This is why it is important to argue about the morality of religion and rebut the views of the fundamentalists who hurt this planet.

Sure you may say that not all people are extremists, and hit me with crap like that.

But you are part of an idea, which preaches intolerance and hate, and which is responsible for so many of the world’s wars.

Others may think that it will not make a difference. No religious person will ever be swayed. Plus, what can one person with a small blog do?

But they are oh so wrong.

It is not one person, there are many people who share these views, and the internet has opened up a portal for them to appeal to others.
Let us take a look at any human rights issue, say homosexuality.

As our society has progressed, and accepted diversity more and more, we have seen what may be called the “gay revolution”. Homosexuality was portrayed in the media, and was tolerated (by most) and today there are far more openly gay couples then there were 30 or 40 years ago.

The same can be said with atheism. It is no longer considered Satanism, devil worship, communism or immorality. It is accepted as a point of view, and thus atheist numbers have grown dramatically. That is the effect of popularisation and the free media in our society.

So I hope you heed my call and stop being an ignorant little sheep.

Argue about religion.

However, feeling that this has been overused, overranted, overwritten, overabused and overwaffled about, I will instead talk about the complete irrelevance of it. I will show that it has no meaning, no point and no reason. It is just, plain, dumb.

This is god:

BOW DOWN TO THE ALMIGHTY!!! GIVE HIM YOUR SOUL! YOU SINNER!

What’s that you say? He isn’t god? He doesn’t exist?

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!
You point to a picture of:

Well they can’t both exist, can they?

There are so many theories about different gods, different interpretations so many differing views, that obviously not one of them is true.

Now apparently far more people believe that this “Jesus” character is god, rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (They’ll all burn in hell)

Now more importantly these so called believers, feel that they must do the work of their one (three apparently) true God/s.

Now that’s quite easy to do because obviously:

God hates fags

God hates America

God hates Sweden

God hates Canada

God also hates homophobes (hmm)

God hates figs

God hates Christians

And more importantly

God hates Fred Phelps

So of course it’s quite easy to do god’s bidding as there’s such a variety of things to hate. Oh, God is so devilishly evil!

So really this all loving god loves everything so much that he just must hate those damned figs.

Quite frankly, I do not believe god exists, but if he did, would that change much? Would that justify all the killings that were done in his name? The death to the infidel? The evangelical blubberings?

All the hate?

Would for so many the need to worship god be justified? Does it not occur to them that if god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnifarious, omnipotent and an omnibus, he does not need to be worshipped?

God

Apparently Christians believe that they must worship “god” and go to church because he tells them that they should meet with other Christians, talk to each other. Yes, because of course, Christians are superior to all other humans, and the status quo just doesn’t suit their elitist organisation.

I ask you now, will the existence of god change anything? If he was all of those omni things, then wouldn’t a lot of Christians, Jews, Muslims etc go to hell? If there is such a place, and if it’s even a bad place. Because Satan sounds nowhere as bad as god. He believes in logical, rational thought rather than blind belief. He is described as intelligent even. Hell sounds like a lovely place to me.

It’ll suit me just right…..

The full post can be found here:

here

or

here

Jack begins his claims with an attempt to clarify that governments must do some “governing”. He says that censorship is as much a tool of control as “taxes, laws, town planning and education.”

This argument will now once again take us back to the roots of democracy, another reason for the inaugural formulation of government.

The American Heritage Dictionary offers us this definition of democracy:

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

For the sake of this argument, let us assume that we do live in a democracy as the Establishment has us believe.

All Praise The Establishment

According to the definition, the role of the government is to REPRESENT the people, nowhere does it say that it is a form of control.

In fact governments, a recently new concept, were created once the population grew too large, in order to gather the people, to represent them when making laws, not to control.

Regardless of how well the government represents the population (we’ll leave that for another time), its role is just that, represent not control. In fact, I would disagree with the whole definition of the word “govern”, which should not be a term used to describe “governments”, as ironic as that sounds.

Note that Jack refers to taxes, laws, town planning and education as being similar to censorship. Here is how they are not.

As I share a moderately-left wing economic ideology, I believe that governments should be able to aid some of the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, individuals in society. That is why the taxation of the upper class is important in my view. It would help aid the lower classes with social welfare, education (which is important to avoid government control) and health.

You may also argue that the government representatives need an income themselves and a small share of tax will go to them.

The concept of laws is also a valid part of society. It protects people harming other people. No, words do not harm. Laws prevent such things as violence, theft or dangerous behaviour. All things directly affecting people. Unlike words.

I fail to see your point about town planning. About education, however, I feel that the opposite is plausible. A lack of education would lead to government control. It is easier to control unintelligent people than the educated. And education, when uncensored helps prevent crazed individuals from taking power.

What I believe is that any form of government works, when no corruption occurs. A rarity these days.

They’re everywhere…
Jack then goes on to say that censorship is not linked to greed, although I never mentioned it was. And that a rating system is in place, run by a whole board, which allows everyone to view appropriate material for their age category.

In fact, I not only didn’t mention that censorship is linked to greed, I said the opposite. I explained that people in higher positions feel it is their duty to protect others from words, and I feel that this is wrong. Once again, their may not be one old guy sitting in a chair, censoring the material, but the truth is, most government officials are older than the populations average, have more conservative views (which may come out after being elected) and are completely out of touch with what goes on in their country. Thus this “fair board” is not all that fair at all.

Unfortunately in Australia, the X-rating, the highest rating available, bans all forms of portrayed sexual violence, rape, fetishes or portrayal of under-aged sex. So no, adults can not watch violent bondage and rape scenes.

What you say about gang-rapes and portrayed murder, is only wrong in a society where we make it wrong. Yes, I am proposing a radical view here, but it is plausible if people just think outside the moral high ground Christian box that they were brought up in.

Also you seem to say that self-censorship and fear of retribution is a stupid argument?

Then how do you explain Stalinist Russia, where people chose to disassociate themselves with their family because of fear of retribution.

This part of your article takes a very contradictory turn.

I will quote:

“A person can say whatever they want, so long as it does not directly harm another person or incite hatred, the reality is that nobody will publish or air his thoughts because very very few people agree with him.”

and

“Imagine if a neo-nazi, obsessed with eradicating the jews gets hold of one of these mediums, just once. His advertisement promotes an anti-jewish rally in the city. “

Oh, but very few people agree with him, and he won’t get published… Make up your mind.

I agree with you om one point. The pen is mightier than the sword. Killing people is not showing might, but using your pen to create an intellectual work (such as this) is great, and only becomes greater when you take restrictions off the use of the pen.

Your point about the neo-Nazi is what I will address next.

In a censor-less society, the neo-Nazi will say what he feels, but will be shot down by the majority speaking out. Most people are not extremists, they will not support his views. And the public knowledge that the majority is against him will deter him from committing these acts of hate.

In the censored society, these hateful acts go on behind closed doors, the neo-Nazi supporters will gather in secret, and deal a surprise blow to their opposition. Wouldn’t it be safer to know when and where they are going to strike, if they do something as ignorant as discussing these acts in public.

Another hypothetical to deal with is the direct opposite of the hate-speech situation.

Say a majority hates a certain race, and a minority wants to speak out against the hate shown towards that race. Would we censor them?

Moving on, and Jack claimed that my statement saying Australia does not acknowledge free speech was bigotry. He directed me to this link, which he himself had not read

The analysis of legislature states:

“Freedom of Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.”

Please do not call me a bigot, when you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of.

Bigot

In my conclusion I would like to address the issue of morality.

Yes, my stance on this issue is quite radical and perhaps not tested and tried. However, the issue of morals is what annoys me most about this.

What do you see as being moral? Is there anything wrong with viewing pornography, or children viewing it. Is acting out a death immoral? And how so? What dictates our morals. In a censored world, we believe those things to be immoral, unethical. But in a changed uncensored world, morals can change. Yes maybe the making of a violent pornographic film may be debateable as to whether it hurts anyone, but viewing it never can and never will.

Thank you for everyone’s support on this. After just four days I’ve had 1700 hits, made the homepage of shoutwire.com, and am 50th on WordPress.com’s most popular blogs

At least that’s what any sane person should think when posed with this intelligence defying question.

Why have censorship?

Are our human eyes too vulnerable to see something that us humans have created?

Must something as natural as a man and a woman… and a dog making love be so taboo, that we must pretend to look away in disgust?

The concept of censorship in and of itself is just a tool for the government to control its people, the consequence of the greed of people in positions of power. Which leads on to the first question of why governments are initially formed?

Governments were created to effectively gather the people, to increase their production value.Now if somebody were to have an idea of a more effective way of rule, or if somebody thought that someone was using innapropriate techniques in seeking to increase yield then why should their ideas be suppressed, why must their opinion on how to better the system be stifled. In this sense censorship is not only useless, it is hurting the society.

The human mind has evolved to come up with ideas of its own, and now those are considered “dangerous”.

We have seen these societies develop in the 1920s, and at their peak they caused the biggest war in history, and tens of millions of other “removals”. Now our democratic society is heading down the same track. More on that further down.

Another issue that must be addressed when addressing the issue of censorship is libel.

That key word that often gets used along with those such as “complicit” or “rehabilitation”. Quite frankly libel is all that, and nothing more.

It is used, because the government wants us to believe that words hurt people.

Full image credit to Pox of http://hacksawstudios.tk/
Unless they’re censored of course:

Pox again
One must indeed ask why libel must be so wrong?

Surely words do not impale, shoot, or kneecap people. What is the point of having laws against it? Why can I not call someone a terrorist whore, convict them of murdering people and then call him a dirty Commie all in one sentence? Why is that wrong?

Sure, you may argue that people will start to hate him/her, and that someone’s reputation will be ruined.

However, that argument only works when slander IS illegal. If there were no laws protecting that, then who cares what anyone says about you, suck it up, everyone is getting the same shit thrown in their face. Who cares?

Unfortunately too many people care. And those people aren’t the ones who are defamed. They are people in positions of power, who feel it is their duty to carry out the bureaucratic censoring. Even more unfortunately our society today has too many of them, and this could ultimately lead to a fascist state.

I have first hand experienced being censored due to charges of defamation. And this experience has bought a fear of sanctioning into my mind, that I doubt will ever go away.

Sure you may think that writing this blog shows that I have free speech. But little do you know that I myself have censored parts of it to avoid sounding offensive.

Maybe there won’t be a consequence in response to this article or the previous one, but it is that inherent fear, that self-censorship going on, that causes the problem.

My real views are not appearing in the public domain, they cannot be heard due to fear of retribution.

Unfortunately in Australia, our freedoms are not even legally supported, and freedom of speech is not accepted as such.

The Commonwealth Government have tried several times to make flag desecration illegal, and that is just not right. Desecrating the flag, the most important symbol a Nation has, is a strong act of rebellion and is a fundamental part of free speech.

If a society is built on ideals such as this what will stop it from becoming a Stalinist regime? A 1984 in the 21st century?

If my views cannot be fully portrayed in writing, then where is the room for change? How will the society reform, progress?

My blanket argument about this issue, is that censorship has no place in society.

Yes, that means pornography, violence and OH MY GOD PROFANITY on our television screens.

Now you may think this is all blasphemous and wrong, but before I hit you with the “good outweighs the bad argument”, which it does, let me firstly refute the fact that any of it is bad.

Once again return to my introduction. I posed this question:

Are our human eyes too vulnerable to see something that us humans have created?

I sure as hell think that it shouldn’t be.

Firstly, profanity. There is absolutely nothing fucking wrong with saying fuck a few fucking times. It’s a word, it’s not going to burn your eyes, it won’t impale you. I see nothing wrong with saying any word in any language. We made it up… what the fuck does its definition have to do with anything. What makes a word “rude”, the whole concept of words being “wrong” to say is pointless.

Next I move on to the content issue. Why is sex so wrong? It is a natural occurence, it happens everyday, your children were created by it, and now you try to protect them from it? I plead to all parents, instead of restricting what your children see, educate them about it. Tell them that it is not taboo. Also tell them that it is not good to be a slut, or a consumerist whore.

About all other content, television shows and movies are made by actors, who act, with fake blood, and plastic machine guns and computer generated death. VIDEO GAMES HAVE RESPAWN POINTS

They are not fucking up your children.

Censorship is wrong.

Hence we have a non totalitarian society. Simple ain’t it?

EDIT: A good friend of mine has written an article refuting the articles posed here. It can be found here: http://junaman.wordpress.com/rebuttal/ 

A reply will be posted in due time

Also please ensure to direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com

Yes that’s right, the small, peaceful little one, surrounded by the Big Angry Arab Nations, and little Angry Arab Lebanon to the north. Or so the Israelis would like you to think.

The modern Nation that is today called Israel, was officially created on 14th May 1948, when the UN passed a “resolution” to give the Jewish land of Israel independence and remove it from British control. Now “resolution” is one of the harshest things I’ve heard in a while, that would be like slitting your already scarred wrists, dousing them in petrol and setting fire to them, because, quite frankly, the only thing it resolved was the brief period of peace that could have ensued in that region. Nevertheless, the resolution was passed when a majority of UN members voted for a Zionist Jewish state.

Let us have a look at Zionism.

Dictionary.com defines Zionism as:

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Basically, it’s a form of Jewish nationalism that believes that the Jewish people should have a home in Palestine. That they should kick Muslims out of their homes in Palestine, take away their land and take it for themselves, just because it says so in a nearly 2000 year old book or because god told them it was theirs.

Quite frankly, the concept is stupid. If humans were to return to their historic roots we would all be living in Africa.

That however is not the only problem. The unfortunate part is that the concept is also dangerous: one of the most racist ideologies in modern times. The problem is that the land they so desperately “need” and have is the single piece of terrain that would cause the most problem.
The Jews believe that the land is theirs, and some will stop at nothing to get it. And now that they have it, they don’t care how many people they must kill to have it. And with the support of the whole Western world, who unashamedly hates those “dirty Arabs”, and 27 000 nuclear warheads on their side, there’s nothing to stop them.

Perhaps, one might argue, successfully, that Israel could have gotten the message back in 1948.

Yes that’s right. 1948. Israel receives independence on a shiny platter. SURROUNDING COUNTRIES (yes, all of them) INVADE ISRAEL. War ensues. People die. 700 000 refugees left homeless. Israel gains land. Arab countries return to build up force again.

Now you would think that right then, back where it began, Israel would have realised that maybe being there was not such a good idea. Perhaps they would have thought of another place to go.

Sure you may argue that many countries gained independence through a war, but they usually defeat their enemies, unlike in this case, where Israel REMAINED SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHOSE RAGE FOR THIS COUNTRY HAD JUST BEEN INFURIATED.

I MEAN, I WOULD BE THINKING: GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Considering how the surrounding countries had in some cases extremist governments, and definitely extremist organisations, this was the sane thing to do.

Recently I have been advocating a peaceful Israel, in Northwest Texas, USA:

This way, Israel can keep their priceless dessert, keep the West Bank and Gaza, and have about 10 times the land area, due to the incredibly poor scale of those two maps.

But no, Israel sat up on its high horse just waiting like a sitting duck.

Several wars later, we’re at the conclusion of another violent conflict, where Israel has used inhumane tactics against an “extreme” opponent, who in my view has been well behaved comparatively.

Please also note that in the definition of Zionism, it states that the movement was founded due to the increasing Anti-Semitism in Europe. Well unless Israel hasn’t noticed, the “in” thing in Europe now seems to be tolerance. It was quite clear that they took a turn to the liberal politics after the Second World War, and haven’t harmed a flea since then.

Thus I will take the liberty to propose this:

I am quite sure that no one will have any problems with this arrangement.

It is quite clear, that the situation in the Middle East will not solve itself, and I am only proposing solutions for a better future.

I feel that I have said enough, if not too much about this already. I feel the need, however, to reinforce.

Israel should have learnt its lesson back in 1948, when they were invaded only hours after becoming a nation. Unable to wipe out the numerous extremist groups that knocked on its door, the “peaceful” state should have gotten the hell out.

That is why excuses today about Israel only “defending itself”, have little to no weight. Unfortunately they are bought by today’s media, who, have done nothing to condemn their actions. Sure, they may be reporting the facts, about the war, and how there have been bombings on both sides. But they have bought the “self-defense” story and done nothing to report otherwise.

Finally, a post about Israel cannot have no mention of the US. Those bastards, where the Jews rule the media, and have control of the major corporations, have gone against the flow of all other major powers, and have not condemned Israel. They deserve to be punished.

We all know the ceasefire is not going to last.

junaman

Please note that my blog is now also at www.incompetence.tk and direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com (please!!!)

And only recently I came to a stark realisation. I hate people.

It was Shakespeare who said: “People are such arseholes”. Well no it wasn’t, but that’s just because he is an arsehole. That just proves my point.

Shakespeare – an arsehole

Let’s face it, humans are the scum of the Earth.

Whether white:

or perhaps

White

Black:

or maybe even…
Black

Or Spanish:

Spanish

people are what make this planet the hell hole it is…

So I plead to you all, when hating somebody, remember to hate not their skin colour, nationality, gender, sexual preference, religion, but their species. Please hate the fact that they are human above all else.

Think about it. Had Mel Gibson been stopped drunk and speeding and said something like: “People are responsible for all the wars in the world”, he would not only be completely right, but no one would care. In fact he would probably have been considered the nicest guy in Hollywood for being so anti-war and all… until they remembered his film career that is.

Mel Gibson

No I am not trying to be all anti-prejudice or anything. I truly DO hate all people. They’re selfish, stupid, warmongering bastards.

Before I finish this first attempt at literary skill, I will tell you that you can comment on my post.
But beware, I will leave you now with something that should go at the end of all of my blogs, a great quote from a great mind:

“I Don’t Care”. Shakespeare again… or Hobby or someone.

Please direct all hate mail to junaman@gmail.com.

This blog will be more opinionated, with more English words and less imaginary words. Basically, a place for me to express my ultra Christian, neo-conservative, fascist views and show that America sincerely is the one true Democracy and that it must liberate the East at all costs.

Or if a true conservative was reading this he could describe my posts here as blasphemous liberal trash…

My first editorials will soon follow… these ones will have pictures!