tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81295264549244804582024-03-13T16:38:58.769-04:00The Knight WriterA shadowy flight into the world of a man who does not exist. A loner, on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless - in a world of criminals who operate above the law.R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-66402410647060200502018-04-30T19:00:00.000-04:002018-04-30T19:09:45.484-04:00Who Will Say Her Name?On April 12, 2018 in Shreveport, Louisiana, Johnathan Robinson intentionally shot and killed his ex-girlfriend Rannita Williams during a live stream on the Facebook social media platform. After the shooting, he engaged the police in an hour-long stand-off wherein he shot at officers, wounding one. After his arraignment, a judge set Robinson's bail at $2.5 million. Previously, Robinson had a felony conviction in 2015 stemming from a domestic assault for which he received probation and a suspended sentence.<br />
<br />
The following is what people are NOT going to talk about.<br />
<br />
Robinson received a slap on the wrist for a vicious, aggravated assault. Rather than simply saying the penal code is broken, slaps on the wrist are usually attributed to wealth, privilege, maleness or whiteness. However, Robinson is not wealthy, privileged or white and if it's one thing they love to do in Louisiana, it's put black men in prison. Therefore, it boggles the mind why he wasn't charged with domestic abuse aggravated assault which carries a max 5 year term and MIGHT have saved Rannita Williams life.<br />
<br />
As not only a felon but also a domestic abuser, Johnathan Robinson was doubly prohibited from buying or owning a firearm. How did he get one? He discharged his firearm 6 times in Rannita Williams direction and prevented help from reaching her for over an hour. No background check, no magazine restriction, no gun-specific ban--no firearm regulation of any kind--would have saved her life from this attack. The only thing that might have given her a chance would have been shooting him before he shot her.<br />
<br />
The police forgot the Golden Rule of policing in America: black suspects are NOT to be apprehended alive. Especially not black men that shoot at and/or wound officers. Given the disproportionate number of black males in prison, they forget this rule quite frequently, so it might just be an unremarkable fact.<br />
<br />
After Robinson intentionally murdered a mother live for the entire world to see, engaged in a stand-off with cops, shot a cop and became combative in jail...a judge determined he should be granted bail. I doubt Robinson has the bond price and I doubt anyone is going to provide it for him, so he'll sit in jail where a danger to the community belongs. However, you might recall a certain shooting, by a man of a certain race, using a weapon of a certain kind, against people of a certain other race in Tennessee that has held American attention for the last two weeks. That alleged mass murderer was granted bail also, but the difference is there was community uproar and his bond was revoked--as it should have been. As is typical, when their isn't much to gain politically, those crying foul the loudest disappear.<br />
<br />
Neither Donald Trump nor the NRA has spoken out against this act of senseless violence...and neither has Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Oprah Winfrey, Rihanna, Beyonce, Corey Booker or Angela Davis. And, nobody with a voice will. Nobody cares about the day-in-and-day-out violence that is a byproduct of social and moral decay. Nobody cares about suffering that isn't polarizing, and can't be monetized or politicized. Rannita will get no hashtag and no law, because, frankly, nobody cares about the Rannitas of this world. Nobody will say her name.R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-12269380384000690802017-08-18T00:41:00.001-04:002017-08-18T00:41:35.730-04:00Sinners, Saints and Everyone In BetweenIn Catholic art Satan, Adam/Eve, Nephilim, fallen angels, Judas Iscariot and other disgraced souls are often displayed in poses and with expressions that suggest isolation, shame and anguish.<br />
<br />
Let that marinate. Some more. A little more. Moooooore. Okay. Why did I mention it? Don't cheat. Why is it important? Are you ready?<br />
<br />
Sinners are prominently displayed in catholic art.<br />
<br />
Not hidden. Not ignored. Not swept under the rug. Not tucked away in a place no one will ever visit. No, the most repulsive characters in the Bible are exquisitely rendered in beautiful and awe-inspiring artwork in churches, in squares, in cemetaries, on official buildings and yes...in museums.<br />
<br />
Shame is the national pastime of Catholics. Remembering the liars, the betrayers, the Rebels and the disgraced (and their fates) is important to the development of faith and obedience. Secularly, from a literary point-of-view, these characters are allegory for the folly of pride, arrogance, hatred, disobedience and other vices.<br />
<br />
If Americans were half as smart as they think they are, Confederate symbolism would be as well.<br />
<br />
These so-called "heroes" of the Confederacy should be displayed like Biblical sinners in Catholic art...heads down-turned, faces showing their guilt, blood on their hands shielding their faces from unseen scornful stares--and the Coup de grace--a plaque that reads:<br />
<br />
"Here stands the traitor, slaver, bigot and terrorist Nathan Bedford Forrest who dedicated his life to hatred and the murder of innocents. This statue, erected by We The People of these United States, stands so that future generations may know of his shame and remember the patriots who gave their lives to preserve this Imperfect Union and provide liberty and justice for all. Let no man, woman or child repeat the crimes of Nathan Bedford Forrest."<br />
<br />
Boom! Two birds, one stone. Racists get to have their heroes on display and non-racists don't have to see traitors glorified in public places. Confederate symbols would not be insensitive to Black Americans and would grow to be a bitter poison twisting the bowels of people who long for the antebellum days. Not a glorious homage to the rebel spirit, but an allegory to the folly of bigotry. Win-win.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Americans don't like "win-win..." they like "I win." So, you get what we had here last week: one group of children trying to out shout another group of children and an innocent life lost over...what? Nothing...that's what. Time and time again, America makes this same mistake, believing they can force others to their way of thinking and destroy any enemy set before them.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, ideas cannot be destroyed with cannons or wrecking balls. Not in the American Civil War. Not in World Wars I and II. Not in Korea, Vietnam, China or Russia. Not during the Modern Civil Rights Movement. Not in The Middle East. Not in Africa. Not in Cuba. And, we won't destroy it today by pulverizing monuments to hatred, now that the hatred in some Americans' hearts has reared its ugly head again.<br />
<br />
Driving these people underground only ensures they will come back stronger, more virulent and more dangerous than they were to begin. If we have learn ANYTHING from the last CENTURY of ruining Middle Eastern countries is should be this...one...thing:<br />
<br />
Destroying the symbols extremists revere does nothing to destroy the extremist's reverence for extremism; it only serves as validation that his or her extremist beliefs are righteous and just.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have often repeated the phrase: "we must be intolerant or intolerable things." However, the <b>ONLY</b> way to destroy an evil ideology is to replace it with one that is pure and good. Therefore, we must abandon our almost pathological desire to be right, to win and bend others to our will. We must be willing to be cursed, be spat upon, turn the other cheek and truly embrace our brothers and sisters. We must be willing to weather the storm of racist tirades, conservative indifference and liberal tantrums. To get rid of the most intolerable evil, we must tolerate those possessed by it.<br />
<br />
The road to the mind is through the heart. Where the heart leads, the soul follows. Traveling that road is an impossible journey for a vindictive, self-righteous and me-centric society, who only has a hammer and sees every problem as a nail. If we are going to change the minds of others--and eradicate the disease that is rotting away the soul of this once great nation--we must start by first changing our own.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_l4Ab5FRwM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
P.S.: No Catholics were harmed in the making of this blog. Agree or disagree with the wars they fought, please show some love to those that answered the call and fulfilled their oaths to the Constitution with honor and bravery. Instead of continuing to revile each other, stop your congressional representatives from sending them to fight another immoral and unjust war. Don't screw it up this time, America. We may not get another chance.R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-90847624442761924352017-08-16T21:12:00.000-04:002017-08-16T21:22:58.742-04:00One Nation IndivisibleWhen I started to write this, my intention was to have a thought experiment where we pretended slavery didn't exist in America in the 1860s and I would ask "ok then, why did we go to war?"<br />
<br />
I realized that was a fool's errand.<br />
<br />
The South had an economic and political strangehold on America, and they wanted to expand that into the new territories. Furthermore, they believed the central government had no right to impede them.<br />
<br />
How did they get control?<br />
<br />
Through slavery.<br />
<br />
The wealthiest agricultural magnates in the South--the 1%-ers of the Antebellum days--used forced labor to make ridiculous profits. They effectively lobbied to get disproportionate congressional representation based upon the slaves who were not free to leave the south. And finally, they successfully lobbied to have any escaped slaves returned. It was the perfect business model, protected by the authority of the central government--an authority they would later rebuke.<br />
<br />
Forget about morality and essential liberty. Forget about the suffering of black people. Just put it out your mind. The only way to make government fair and representative and to make the market free--duties of the government enshrined in the constitution--was to abolish slavery.<br />
<br />
The South needed to preserve and extend slavery to maintain economic supremacy. Abolitionists wanted to end slavery because it was immoral. Blacks wanted to end slavery because they had been languishing under the lash for 400 years. Poor white southerners wanted to end slavery so they could compete fairly. The North wanted to end slavery to break the back of the South. And, the government had a duty to end slavery because it was unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
It was <u><b>ALL</b></u> about<span style="color: red;"><u> slavery</u></span>.<br />
<br />
Lincoln had a plan to preserve the Union and end the abomination of slavery. He wanted to gradually wean the south off the slavery tit through compensated voluntary manumission. It was not ideal, but it fulfilled the constitutional and moral obligation of the States in the most painless way possible.<br />
<br />
How did the south react? They refused. They turned their back on the Union and attacked their former compatriots on the the grounds of states' right and the financial well-being of 1%-ers. They did not care about the constitutional need to end slavery. They did not care about loyalty to their country. They did not care about a free, competitive economy. They didn't care about the inalienable rights of slaves. They didn't even want to coexist in peace as two separate nations.<br />
<br />
If this was anyone else except our great great grandparents, we would say the "Rebels" were selfish, disloyal, stubborn, immoral and foolhardy. But, because we idolize that prideful rebel spirit, we whitewash what they really did and what it meant.<br />
<br />
At the point they seceded, raised a new flag and called themselves the Confederate States they were no longer American. They're history is NOT our history. Furthermore, when they attacked the United States, they became no different than Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany or ISIS.<br />
<br />
What loyal American patriot flies the black flag of ISIS? Who dons a swastika and gives the Roman salute? Who reveres the crescent and the hammer of communism? If any American of Islamic faith, Russian or German heritage did, they would be reviled. Japanese Americans won't even talk about old Imperial Japan. British expats never speak of the "good ol' days" when America was still British. Mexican Americans don't erect statues to the Spaniards who died in the Mexican-American War. Confederate symbols and "heroes," however... they are special. They have been (white)washed clean and, somehow, made holy.<br />
<br />
We born in this country, we have a common history ALL can remember with pride--American history. Americans are pioneers, freedom fighters, liberators, innovators, discoverers, philosophers, makers of exquisite art and soulful music. We conquered the wild and reached for the stars. We harnessed the power of nature by splitting the atom and connected the world with the internet. We have fought genocide, famine and plagued. We destroyed fascism, totalitarianism and communism. We have spread freedom and democracy the world over. We were the original Rebels of modernity; all free, democratic republics are the progeny of America. It means something <i>to be</i> <b>American</b>. Despite all this deep American history, some Americans want to glorify the 4 years when we couldn't get our shit together.<br />
<br />
And that... is truly sad.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jcsPD2wc_rY" width="560"></iframe>R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-80570613797665752742017-07-28T16:50:00.003-04:002017-07-28T16:50:47.921-04:00Thank You For Your Service<div class="MsoNormal">
File under: Learning How to Live<br />
<br />
Due to the fact I live in the middle of nowhere, no internet
service providers offer a reliable broadband service where I live. Therefore,
you will often find me sitting in my car in a random parking lot, catching up
on social media, whenever I travel into the city. Yesterday evening, I was
sitting in the CVS Pharmacy parking lot, as I am wont to do. It was after dark,
approaching closing time for most stores in the plaza. I was sitting some
distance away from the store away from all the other cars. Having just finished
an emotionally difficult telephone call, I began to draft an even more
emotionally difficult text message. Peripherally, I notice a car pass in front
of me turn and travel on around the lot. Being distracted, as I was, I did not
notice this vehicle had circled back and pulled up on my rear. Startled, I get a knock on the window and
look up to find a county sheriff standing outside my door.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My immediate reaction was anger. All I could wonder is what
yokel called the cops on me for sitting here, minding my business--not
bothering anyone. I go on the defensive and a flood of legal knowledge and
situational drills rush to the forefront of my brain. What seems to be the
problem officer? Was there a complaint? Is there a reason you approached my
vehicle? Do you have some reason to believe some sort of crime is occurring?
Has the owner asked that I leave the premises?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much to my consternation, the officer was not being
confrontational, aggressive, authoritarian, demeaning or disrespectful in any
way. This threw a wet blanket on my fiery libertarian zeal. It is much less
vindicating to rage against the machine when the machine is not being a tool. I
realized…this guy is just doing his job…we both just want to get through this
and go home. I reminded myself that I do not have the right NOT to identify
myself when operating a motor vehicle.
Being a jerk can only make things worse, so just shut up and go along
with it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With my hands on the steering wheel of the car, I informed
the officer that I have no weapons in the cabin of the vehicle, but there is
ammunition in the glove compartment and an unloaded firearm in the trunk. I ask
if it is all right to turn the dome light on so that he can see into the
vehicle. When he says it is ok, I do so…slowly. Now that he can see into the
vehicle, I ask if it is ok that I retrieve my wallet from my left side front
pocket. When he says it is ok, I do so…slowly.
While he is communicating with dispatch, I keep my hands on the steering
wheel. He encourages me to “relax,” and states that it will not take long. My
record is spotless, so I am not worried I will not be driving home soon.
However, as I am sitting there, something I did not expect occurred: he struck
up a conversation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He remarks that I am very familiar with the regulations for
carrying firearms and asks why I do not apply for a permit so that I can carry
mine in the car with me. I remark that this situation would be much tenser if
there was a firearm in here with me (the real reason is I am a notorious
procrastinator). He quips, if I need it in an emergency I cannot ask the
attacker to “hold on” while I retrieve it from the trunk and load it. We both
laugh at that. We talk about our common interest, firearms, for a while:
favorite carry options, EDC, favorite caliber, ranges to go to… Turns out we
both favor the same round, for the same reason (although he is a Glock fanatic,
sigh). He talked about the time while on vacation an officer stopped him after
he fell asleep in his civilian vehicle in a hotel parking lot. We
talked…lightly…about the subject of our tension: bad cops and bad interactions
between them and the public. He professed that bad cops make his job harder and
those like him want them gone. He admitted in a number of high profile cases
that many of the shooters “got away with murder.” He states that is a pleasure
to be able to talk with a member of the public about common interests and
concerns, without animosity or distrust. I agreed and explained to him that my
grandfather, a retired deputy sheriff, and father were both involved in law
enforcement at one time, so I understood “both sides” of the issue.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He concluded the stop by shaking my hand and thanking me for
the service of my father and grandfather. This heart-felt gesture touched me in
a very profound way. For the first time in a long time, I felt a feeling of deep
pride and connectedness to my father and grandfather. I let go of what was
dogging me, and a sense of the peace and calm came over me. I finished writing
the missive I was having difficulty writing and went home feeling unexpectedly
inspired.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I said about my father and grandfather was only mostly
true and only in an esoteric sense. It was an olive branch—a peace offering—to
build trust and extend empathy. The truth is I never knew my grandfather, as
him and the family had estranged since before I was born. Further, I did not
know much about his or my father’s experiences in law enforcement. My father was not fond of talking talk about
his former life, or overmuch about his father in more than a general way. Many
of the stories from that time in his life seemed to take my father to a bad
place; so, as I became wiser, I stopped asking about them. I gathered that, ultimately, it was that life—law
enforcement—that wedged into the cracks of my father and grandfather’s
relationship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have only ever seen my grandfather in pictures. He was an
imposing man with a genial smile, the spitting image of my father, save my
grandfather’s rusty hair had not darkened with age the way my father’s hair had.
I knew he did dote on his grandchildren. Much of what I knew about him when I
was a child I learned from my eldest siblings and cousins; at one time, he was
a constant fixture in their lives. I never heard my grandmother so much as
speak his name in all the years she lived.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I did speak to him once, over the telephone. I was maybe
eight or nine years old at the time. All these years later, I do not remember the
sound of his voice, but I remember every word he spoke and how I felt, <i>finally</i>, to talk to my grandfather. He introduced himself, “Grandpa Bane,” and asked
me who I was. We spoke very briefly. He told me that he wanted to see me, gave
me his number and told me to call him. Few times can I remember being as happy
as I was that day. As I often did, I waited impatiently and excitedly for my
father to get home from work; I liked to be the first person to greet him when
he came through the door. I wanted to
tell him my grandfather <i>wanted</i> to see
<b>ME</b>. Over the turbulent years, my
father and I have had some tense, heated and emotional conversations. None,
however, was as heart-rending and agonizing, for both of us, as when he had to
tell me I would not be seeing my grandfather after all. I never did. He passed away a short while later.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I thought about my grandfather for the first time in a long
time on the drive home—whimsical things, not sad things. Like, did he have a disarming demeanor and a
strong handshake like the deputy? What would be his choice in firearm or
caliber today? What would an old-timer like him think of mine? What would he
have to say about the state of law enforcement today? Would he have wanted me
to continue in my pursuit of a career in criminal justice? I thought about all
the conversations we never had and, for the first time, thinking of them did
not make me angry or bitter—it made me smile.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that I have forced upon you a boring story, a sad story
and a sob story, what is your reward for all that? What is the lesson in all of
this? One thing about law enforcement that my father did share with me was the
importance of the beat cop. Officers in the community patrolling the streets,
interacting with business owners and homeowners, being a visible deterrent to
criminals are vital to strong, safe communities. A couple years ago in my
hometown, my cousin—a bailiff himself—was waiting in the parent line to pick up
his daughter from elementary school when a criminal shot him in the back during
an attempted robbery. In the world we live, a criminal will shoot a father in
front of his wife at his daughter’s elementary school over a cellular
phone. If not for the efforts of dedicated
law enforcement officers—officers like the deputy, my father and my
grandfather—I would not have felt comfortable sitting in my car, in that
neighborhood without my firearm within reach. Police are not the enemy; evil
people and the hatred in all of us is. Catharsis is hard to come by in the
world in which we live, where not much ever makes sense and true closure is rare.
I narrowly almost prevented myself from making peace with a demon that has
plagued me all my life. Closed minds and closed hearts stubbornly clinging to
principle and jaded perceptions prevent us as a society from embracing one
another, healing our wounds and moving beyond the hurts of the past. If
humankind is ever to reach its moment of catharsis, it has to click in each of
us that we are all just people, people doing our jobs—if imperfectly—and we all
want to get through this life to find our way home.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysN3uBtsN8U?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-47556044297352379052015-04-16T04:23:00.001-04:002015-04-16T04:23:19.196-04:00Why You Are Wrong About Police Shootings #BaneLionFile under: For Great Justice<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Did you see what happened before the shooting?"</blockquote>
<br />
This question is invariably asked by those seeking to defend a law enforcement officer when there are allegations of excessive uses of force. Often, I would like to reply: "did YOU see what happened before the shooting?!" This question is, though somewhat understandable and almost excusable coming from the lay person, is highly non-nonsensical and betrays a limited understanding of justified use of lethal force. It is especially baffling when proffered by individuals who claim to "keep and bear arms" for personal defense and support the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<h3>
When Lethal Force Is "Justified"</h3>
<br />
In determining if one is justified in using lethal force against another, the standard is NOT whether the shooter was justified at the moment the altercation began or when he or she drew the firearm. The standard is if the shooter had justification to shoot at the moment he or she squeezed the trigger. Justification would be shooting to prevent imminent or immediate bodily harm or death, either in defense of yourself or someone else. In such a situation where a reasonable person would feel fear, lethal force is justified. However, when the threat ends or at a point where a reasonable person would no longer fear death or bodily harm, lethal force is no longer justified. This means that if you have a good reason to draw your firearm that you DO NOT have a hall pass to unilaterally kill someone.<br />
<h3>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pvspr2riMNM" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<br />Cops Are Not Street Judges</h3>
<br />
If this is the standard for everyday citizens, shouldn't the limitations for sworn peace officers be just as stringent if not more so? Well, turns out it is indeed. Police are required to use modes of force that have a lower likelihood of causing death to apprehend a resisting or fleeing suspect, before using lethal force as a force of last resort. Lethal force is authorized only when a felon is an immediate threat to officers and citizens, or the felon is fleeing and likely will be an imminent threat to others. That's it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kbvU8HFROwI" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<br />
This means that at the moment the police officer uses deadly force against a suspect, if the suspect is not threatening or assaulting someone, or is not a dangerous felon in flight, then the use of force in that situation was not justified--meaning it is a crime. That officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law. Just as you or I would if we committed the same offense.<br />
<br />
<h3>
License To Kill?</h3>
<br />
What about situations where using lethal force IS justified? As mentioned earlier, this is NOT a license to kill. It is protecting your right to defend your life or someone else's with the amount of force necessary to end any and all existential threats. This means self-defense is the application of judicious force--not unlimited force. If one continues to apply lethal force against an assailant AFTER the individual has been sufficiently incapacitated then this transforms from a justifiable self-defense scenario, to an aggravated assault, attempted murder or homicide.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SkJmW2AEbjs" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<br />
This should be no different for police. If a suspect ceases threatening behaviors and attempts to comply, or if the police use lethal force on an incapacitated target, that is excessive force and a crime. The officer has broken the law, should be stripped of his or her badge and tried in a court of law.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JwytoxMuk4U" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<h3>
Where Do We Go Next?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U2L85M287gk" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<br />
The line of reasoning that breaking the law or resisting the imposition of force by the state (a.k.a. resisting arrest) is somehow a justification for abridgment of the Constitution and revocation of all rights without just due process is a bogus argument. The Constitution is here to limit government abuses and protect the rights of the individual--even when the individual is not respecting the rights of others. If we continue to make excuses for this behavior, the situation will never be fixed. Therefore, the first step to solving the problem is, as always, admitting that we have one to being with.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
Police officers have a dangerous and difficult job. Holding them to higher standards of conduct makes it even more so, nevertheless we must. It is a tough calling, not for the timid, cowardly, incompetent or those lacking the most superlative moral character and judgement. Therefore, my solution to police excessive force is to weed out the bad cops who represent the uniform with dishonor<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
It Starts At The Bottom</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UlOQgEGUuS8/VS9g_td5_sI/AAAAAAAAB0w/Jm8oeuD6FD4/s1600/CopBlock1-300x223.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UlOQgEGUuS8/VS9g_td5_sI/AAAAAAAAB0w/Jm8oeuD6FD4/s1600/CopBlock1-300x223.jpg" height="297" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Constitution protects the rights of the accused. Police are not super-citizens above the law.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
There is a shortage of well-qualified police officers nationwide and leading desperate departments to accept all comers. This is a grave mistake. There needs to be much stronger vetting and much more stringent standards regarding mental health and past allegations of domestic abuse or professional misconduct. Also, departments who employ a policy of only hiring applicants of average or below IQ need to abandon it in favor of hiring more discerning and judicious candidates.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Leading From the Front</h3>
<br />
What is indoctrinated in cadets in the academy sticks with them throughout their careers. Unfortunately, police training is decades out-of-date with changes in technology and crime, and out-of-touch with the community police officers must patrol. Police officers are being ingrained with a hyper-militarized mindset, leading to an inherently adversarial relationship with the community at large. This tension is highest in areas where crime and poverty is highest, and police resources are lowest.<br />
<br />
Police officers need enhanced training to safely and effectively resolve encounters with persons undergoing a medical or mental health crisis. Departments must also audit their standard operating procedures for dealing with: domestic disputes, procuring evidence for warrants, when tactical raids are warranted, how raids are executed, encountering protesters/open carriers/citizens filming public servants, stops/detentions for non-violent crimes and other situations that frequently result in unnecessary injuries and fatalities.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5vvod4alujs/VS9gOtONUDI/AAAAAAAAB0o/X8_cDK8oqGQ/s1600/swatbaby.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5vvod4alujs/VS9gOtONUDI/AAAAAAAAB0o/X8_cDK8oqGQ/s1600/swatbaby.jpg" height="171" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The innocent should not fear harm will come to them at the hands of the state.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The wall-of-silence culture must stop. If you see something say something, should apply foremost to those tasked with upholding the law. In this vein, police officers should face stiff penalties for failing to report abuses of power or corruption. When there is a incident involving use of force by an officer, it should be investigated by a third party, NOT by the department itself. When officers or police administrators violate the public trust, they need to be fired, prosecuted and barred from ever wearing a badge again.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Right Tools For the Job</h3>
<br />
When it comes down to an interaction between a public servant and a member of the public, it should never be a case of he-said-she-said. These encounters need to be recording in high definition audio and video. Officers should be outfitted with eye-view, body and dashboard recording devices that capture both video and sound, and there should be severe disciplinary action for not ensuring that such are operable before entering the field and recording during a stop. It has been state numerous times that this is a legal safeguard for the officer AND the community. There is no reason these are not standard everywhere.<br />
<br />
Police should be highly visible and available in the community. Every patrol car should have two officers and every neighborhood should have officers walking/cycling the beat. A lack of presence leads to a lack of confidence in the police by the public, and a lack of backup leads to a lack of confidence in themselves by the police. This is a recipe for discord, fear, distrust, anxiety and paranoia. There can be no working relationship between the police and the community in such an environment.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rBd6FrFic_A/VS9dPyWPJxI/AAAAAAAAB0c/CQdJQp3hB3I/s1600/3-5-ShopCop-Uehara.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rBd6FrFic_A/VS9dPyWPJxI/AAAAAAAAB0c/CQdJQp3hB3I/s1600/3-5-ShopCop-Uehara.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Police should be trusted members of the community, not an occupying paramilitary force.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Officers on patrol, need better firearms and firearms training. This might seem antithetical to the sentiment of a post about excessive use of force by police, but it is nonetheless true. Police officers are notoriously terrible shooters who frequently miss a suspect standing right in front of them or wound innocent bystanders as a result of bad shooting habits. Moreover, entering a situation out-manned and outgunned ratchets up the tension and anxiety to an even higher level. Officers on patrol need to be able to confidently engage a potentially hostile suspect, and if necessary, shoot with accuracy and precision to end the threat quickly with a minimal loss of life or collateral damage. Further, if the common refrain is that "my Taser didn't work," isn't time to replace the Taser with something that works better?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Our Part</h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JMz41DdYhDU/VS9l6dMUSZI/AAAAAAAAB1A/L28q6CB0KIs/s1600/hold-police-accountable.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JMz41DdYhDU/VS9l6dMUSZI/AAAAAAAAB1A/L28q6CB0KIs/s1600/hold-police-accountable.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ultimately the power to change this rests in your hands. What will you do?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The responsibility to improve this situation doesn't just fall upon the shoulders of law enforcement. The is a multifaceted issue that must be attacked from multiple angles. The first thing we must do as citizens is curtail the crime and violence within our own community, by refusing to remain silent out of fear. The lawless make the job of the law officer more difficult and dangerous, increasing the likelihood that one day that cop is going to misjudge a situation and harm someone who should not be. We have to root out the bad seeds in our neighborhood, not only to make them safer for ourselves, but also for those who maintain law and order.<br />
<br />
We have to take our civic duty seriously. If you see abuse or corruption, record it and report it. If you have a mayor who doesn't hold the police accountable or a sheriff who doesn't keep a tight reign on his or her deputies, that person should be removed posthaste. Extreme poverty is a strong attractant of violent crime; politicians who criminalize person choice or who vote for job-killing taxes and regulations should also soon find themselves out of a job.<br />
<br />
Obey the law yourself, provide for your own safety and security, and avoid involving the police when not necessary. Many people who die pursuant to an interaction with the police were individuals in a medical or mental health crisis, and probably did not need the police at all. Make sure that you and your loved ones are receiving the type of care needed to function smoothly in society. If someone is not a physical danger to another person, refrain from involving the police--whether they are physically/mentally ill or not.<br />
<br />
Last year over 1,000 persons were killed by police. Calling the police should not be a risky proposition for a law-abiding citizen. If we stop making excuses and start making changes, one day it won't be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IlY9C6pzxKc" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br /><br />
Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this post, I would greatly appreciate you sharing it on Facebook or Twitter. Please feel free to tell me what you think on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/RConradBane" target="_blank">my Facebook page</a>. If you would like to keep up with future posts subscribe above, 'LIKE' the Facebook page and <a href="http://www.twitter.com/RConradBane" target="_blank">follow me</a> on Twitter.</div>
</div>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-81501921017022713512013-12-20T12:16:00.000-05:002013-12-20T12:31:52.531-05:00Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">File Under: Biblically Speaking</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/z9MUlW_bXy0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />Source: Free Domain Radio, Copyright (c) 2013 Stefan Molyneux<br /><br />Philosophers
should teach philosophy, economists should teach economics,
astrophysicists should teach astrophysics, and theologians should
teach theology: to each their own intellectual lane. I grow weary of
atheists pretending to be theologians, or worse, trying to ensnare Christians
with a limited understanding of the Bible. The only people these
persons dupe are people who know even less about the Bible than they
do.<br /><br /><b>Fruit of the False Premise</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">First,
Phil Robert's paraphrased a passage from the Christian-Greek
Scriptures (The New Testament), not the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures
(The Old Testament). Linking Robertson's statement to Leviticus is
patently dishonest, ignorant, or recklessly negligent, because the
<a href="http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson" target="_blank">context of the quote</a> reveals exactly what book of the Bible his
paraphrase came from:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;">Start
with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality,
sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and
those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases </span><span style="color: black;"><i><b>CORINTHIANS</b></i></span><span style="color: black;">:
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the
male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the
drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the
kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I
can assure anyone – Corinthians </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><i><b>DOES
NOT</b></i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
instruct anyone to put anyone else to death for their sins:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">“Or
do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor men who have sex with men,</span><span style="color: black;"><b>
</b></span><span style="color: black;">nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God.</span><span style="color: black;"><b>
</b></span><span style="color: black;">And
that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3kfvMBJsHv0/UrR0iPHpr0I/AAAAAAAAByU/ctIEQAmWtnE/s1600/JesusofNaz-Medium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="475" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3kfvMBJsHv0/UrR0iPHpr0I/AAAAAAAAByU/ctIEQAmWtnE/s640/JesusofNaz-Medium.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Is Christianity Indifferentiable from Judaism?</b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><br />The oblique reference to Matthew 5:17, completely misinterprets
Jesus' meaning, which is simply that he was the Messiah, here to
fulfill the prophecy by establishing a new covenant with Israel (see:
Jeremiah 31:31-32). The religious leaders accused Jesus of being a
seditious heretic, who sought to lead the people astray with his
blasphemous teachings. He assured the gathered crowd that he was not
there to insight rebellion or religious anarchy. There was prophecy
yet to be fulfilled, so his presence was not a release from the moral
strictures of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus spent the rest of
Matthew 5 reaffirming and bolstering the Ten Commandments. However,
in further fulfillment of Jeremiah, Jesus later told his apostles
that the way to a close personal relationship with God (and the new
promise of everlasting life) was now by repentance of sins,
acceptance of Jesus coming sacrifice, and works born of faith. No
longer did Christians have to offer up sacrifices and put sinners to
death – Jesus was THE sacrifice to end all sacrifices. He “bought”
all of their sin, and took it up himself. Therefore, faithful
Christians could look forward to the inheritance of God's kingdom,
whereas unrepentant sinners were to expect eternal damnation.<br /><br /><b>Is the Bible "Hate Speech?"</b><br /><br />Phil
Robertson did not “accurately” quote the Scripture he had in
mind, and he made no reference to Leviticus. The Bible does not
advocate nor mandate the hatred of, harassment, or persecution of any
sinner. In fact, when Saul of Tarsus became the Apostle Paul and
ceased killing Christians, he did not turn around and begin executing
Jews and gentiles. Rather, he attempted to convert everyone, and he
left non-believers and unrepentant sinners to their own devices. By
contrast, Ancient Israel was a Theocracy and the law stated that
individuals guilty of certain crimes (“sins”) were to be executed
after they were found guilty. Modern support of homosexuality as a
life choice and opposition of the death penalty does not make the
laws of that ancient civilization “hate speech,” nor does it make
the command to execute lawbreakers “murder.” Especially,
considering modern adherents of Christianity have no doctrine
endorsing those abandoned laws. Moreover, modern perspectives do not
negate the countless parables, fables, common sense principles, and
object lessons found in the Old Testament.<br /><br /><b>Does God Contradict Himself?</b><br /><br />Christians do
believe the Bible is the divine word of God, and his word was given
in two distinct Testaments, ultimately for two distinct people. The
ancient Israelites repeatedly broke God's commandments, then tortured
and killed his Son, the Messiah. Therefore, God ended the covenant
with the Israelites (the one mandating the death of gays), and
created a new covenant with all of humankind – sans stoning. </span><span style="color: black;"><i>True</i></span><span style="color: black;">
Christians </span><span style="color: black;"><i><b>DO</b></i></span><span style="color: black;">
accept God's command to abstain from homosexuality, and they </span><span style="color: black;"><i><b>DO</b></i></span><span style="color: black;">
accept God's command to no longer execute homosexuals for their sin.
There is no contradiction.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FVOyx7qJDSc/UrR3GpmMqYI/AAAAAAAAByg/G43rac8zNxk/s1600/Bible-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="480" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FVOyx7qJDSc/UrR3GpmMqYI/AAAAAAAAByg/G43rac8zNxk/s640/Bible-2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><b>The Big Non Sequitur</b><br /><br />Phil Robertson was (is?) an
independent contractor of a private, secular entertainment
organization. Priests are employees of churches – private,
religious organizations. Whereas the firing of Phil Robertson for
denigrating his client's customers makes perfect sense, retribution
for priests teaching the Bible in churches does not. The only people
who have a problem with what the church teaches are people who are
not members of the church. A&E does not believe (or want to have
the appearance of believing) their homosexual viewers are the same as
practitioners of bestiality and terrorists, or that black Americans
were happy as sharecroppers during Jim Crow. Therefore, they fired
Phil Robertson. It is NOT the religious segment of society that is
trying to paint Robertson as a hatemonger (or the Bible and God
vicariously through him) – that clamor is probably coming from the
atheist and liberal crowd. Religious persons appear to be just fine
with Robertson practicing his First Amendment right to free speech
and free religious exercise, inaccurate and coarse though it may
be.<br /><br /><b>For the Record</b><br /><br />I think at this point we all know and accept that
Christians do not stone sinners, but sinners will not inherit the
kingdom of God if they do not stop sinning. Some people will try to
construe that as meaning Christians are to accept everyone and
everything without discrimination. So, let's go ahead and set the
record straight on what the Bible DOES say about how Christians
should deal with people who do not follow God's law:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">“I
wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are
immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you
would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you
must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister
but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a
drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business
is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge
those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked
person from among you.”” – 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NIV</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">There
you have it.<br /><br />This video is not the deeply thought out and
well-researched, scholarly excellence I am accustomed to from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot" target="_blank">this channel</a>. This comes off as less “what they aren't telling you,”
and more like an impotent, half-baked attempt to skewer theists for
their beliefs on the end of a blunted spear that completely misses
the mark. Whether you believe the doctrine of your intellectual enemy
or not, you should at least know and understand it </span><span style="color: black;"><i><b>BEFORE</b></i></span><span style="color: black;">
you criticize it. I am sorely disappointed.</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000Z1GR9C/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000Z1GR9C&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Spirit in the Sky</a>" by Norman Greenbaum from "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005K9QL/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00005K9QL&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Spirit in the Sky</a>" released 1969 on Reprise</span></span></div>
</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JKXFXiNvQLs" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-65783228739558775372013-09-19T11:05:00.000-04:002013-09-19T11:05:02.506-04:00Men In HatsFile Under: Common Sense<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4vjCFFNtNSc/UjsPryrsFiI/AAAAAAAABxg/lHgtC-Q-Qog/s1600/417151_508757259148064_113449877_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4vjCFFNtNSc/UjsPryrsFiI/AAAAAAAABxg/lHgtC-Q-Qog/s1600/417151_508757259148064_113449877_n.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Today's lesson will be brief.<br />
<br />
<b>These Are Law Enforcement Officers</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GdTig4kskcU/UjsJli5bVII/AAAAAAAABww/kJiJWWmLiHU/s1600/1379434428001-XXX-NAVY-YARD-SHOOTING-hdb3757.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GdTig4kskcU/UjsJli5bVII/AAAAAAAABww/kJiJWWmLiHU/s1600/1379434428001-XXX-NAVY-YARD-SHOOTING-hdb3757.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rkPezGxghl8/UjsJqSH_XFI/AAAAAAAABw4/RB5vTP6HOiw/s1600/1379346568000-GTY-180765862.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rkPezGxghl8/UjsJqSH_XFI/AAAAAAAABw4/RB5vTP6HOiw/s1600/1379346568000-GTY-180765862.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<b>This Is A Soldier </b> (Note the firearm: <i>soldiers have firearm</i>s)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ehp5CNJRo8M/UjsJuzArtOI/AAAAAAAABxE/NTZL3uPLcag/s1600/1379349312001-EPA-USA-SHOOTING-NAVY-YARD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ehp5CNJRo8M/UjsJuzArtOI/AAAAAAAABxE/NTZL3uPLcag/s1600/1379349312001-EPA-USA-SHOOTING-NAVY-YARD.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>These Are Civilians in Silly Hats</b> (a.k.a. Law <i>Suggestion </i>Officers)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W5g_W68O01g/UjsKIkEfALI/AAAAAAAABxI/ilSqf4xwSeg/s1600/_62970023_waterbottlecop624getty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W5g_W68O01g/UjsKIkEfALI/AAAAAAAABxI/ilSqf4xwSeg/s1600/_62970023_waterbottlecop624getty.jpg" height="358" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />If have written about the growing police and police brutality before. You can Google search and find dozens of stories collected over the past several decades. I prefer to be self-reliant and only call the authorities for situations I should not handle myself. However, those of you who are not big fans of the Second Amendment and self-reliance, you have to ask yourself: in a world where people eat their neighbor's faces do I want to be served by people with firearms, or civilians with silly hats and rape whistles?<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6UVa0ou0Lqk?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-6493143128867195512013-09-06T16:38:00.001-04:002013-09-06T16:38:12.893-04:00*American Perspective*: Don't. Twerk. Just. Don't. (gif)<a href="http://mainfo.blogspot.com/2013/09/dont-twerk-just-dont-gif.html">*American Perspective*: Don't. Twerk. Just. Don't. (gif)</a>R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-76699562592084817652013-08-08T21:36:00.000-04:002013-08-08T22:27:30.643-04:00#LaRevolucion: One and Done?File Under: Politicking<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mSE1oarU6Q0/UgREWrL7wDI/AAAAAAAABv4/pDFvkjheOP0/s1600/no-term-limits1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mSE1oarU6Q0/UgREWrL7wDI/AAAAAAAABv4/pDFvkjheOP0/s1600/no-term-limits1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Are term limits the answer to our problem with government?<br />
<br />
It would seem like we already have a built-in "term-limiter" - the ballot - and it is not working. People seem to want term limits (on bad politicians) but have no qualms re-electing someone decade after decade, whether good or bad. However, would limiting the number of years an individual can do damage in office, stop them from doing damage while they are there? It seems to me that if people knew they only have one or two terms to to get their fingers in as many pies as possible, they would spend even less time doing their jobs than they do now. It would become a revolving door of bad politicians, and good politicians would still be squeezed out by bad politicians with more campaign capital. One of the side effects of not having a term limit is that a person amasses more political pull over time, which they have to use to the benefit of their constituency every so often so as not to get hanged on election day. The ouster, by popular vote, of a long-seated politician for their lethargy or corruption is significantly more emphatic to the next would-be hack than simply waiting for the new guy's act to finish in the term limit circus.<br />
<br />
Moreover, what happens when we actually get a good politician in office, he or she spends the term limit fighting against the establishment, and then is gone forever? Of greater primacy to the securement of a functioning republic would be campaign finance reform, increased transparency, performance standards, and increased accountability for reaching those standards. If elections are fair and cannot be bought. If politicians create policies that encourage business and job growth. If politicians respect the Constitution and civil liberties. And, if politicians regularly pass balanced budgets. Then what difference does it make if they are in office 2 years or 2 decades?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A12XQPI/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00A12XQPI&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Doom and Gloom</a>" by The Rolling Stones from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009NOVCTM/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B009NOVCTM&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">GRRR!</a></i> released 2012 on Capitol</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iWNpy1retXc?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-53583260953875924012013-08-06T11:28:00.000-04:002014-08-20T14:20:29.067-04:00#LaRevolucion: Kiss the Dollar Menu Goodbye, and America Right Along With It.File Under: Slave to the Wage<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RPONOgiTuCg/UgDwzBamwxI/AAAAAAAABvY/_f5iAvPNKXs/s1600/sq-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RPONOgiTuCg/UgDwzBamwxI/AAAAAAAABvY/_f5iAvPNKXs/s1600/sq-01.jpg" height="352" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
I listen to people, especially to people with whom I have personally connected. Therefore, when friends, associates, and acquaintances of mine lambast low-skill workers, who want an increase from the Federal Minimum Wage to a more liveable wage, as being unambitious and lazy, I took note. This is especially confounding when this criticism comes from individuals who at one point in their lives sailed in the same boat. I need to see if their is any merit to either side of this discussion.<br />
<br />
<b>What We Agree Upon</b><br />
<br />
The Federal Minimum Wage is currently $7.25 per hour for most types of hourly workers. In some localities this minimum is higher, up to $3.00 more in fact. Minimum wage jobs are usually low-skill, entry level jobs designed to be occupied temporarily by young, inexperienced workers before moving on (ideally) to bigger and better things. However, what we are seeing is that this supposed teens-first-job type of job is turning into a dead-end job and thus a career for more and more people. In reality, the age of the average foodservice worker is currently 29, half a decade beyond college-age and a full decade beyond the teenage years.<br />
<br />
<b>Businesses Are Not Charities</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Businesses are not charities and even charitable organizations have to be profitable. Economists believe minimum wage standards and higher wages will lead to higher unemployment because corporations will respond by: downsizing, reducing plans for expansion, and raising prices. More expensive products will become less in demand and you get a self-fulfilling loop of socioeconomic nastiness. Additionally, these positions are designed for their turnover. Better wages would decrease turnover (also increasing unemployment) and cause deleterious effects (to everyone but the workers and consumer) we will get into in a short while.<br />
<br />
<b>Nobody Forces You To Work There</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Why do not these "low-skill" workers get more skills, and in turn better wages or jobs? To the teenager getting ready to graduate high school back in 1978, McDonald's might have been a great first job. Today, however, working through college on minimum wage is a bit harder than you think considering the cost of tuition has increased 1,120 percent over what it was 30 years prior. In case you are wondering, no, the minimum wage has not increased anywhere even remotely close to that amount. But, the cost of living (which includes things like food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education, and healthcare) has done its darndest to keep in line. In Washington, D.C., our nation's capital, the current minimum wage is $5.43/hr below the living wage. Unless two and four-year colleges are going to start handing out free certificates and degrees, increasing your skills on minimum wage is going to take some "Machine Gun" Kelly / Bernie Madoff-esque accounting and budgeting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zWvqAZn1dFw/UgEBAO6z-0I/AAAAAAAABvs/grRcNOvbcqE/s1600/Student-Debt-Cartoon-Big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zWvqAZn1dFw/UgEBAO6z-0I/AAAAAAAABvs/grRcNOvbcqE/s1600/Student-Debt-Cartoon-Big.jpg" height="502" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
What's really ridiculous is that the competition for low-skill jobs has increased so much those seeking to fill these positions have started looking for candidates with college degrees in some instances, further squeezing out the people who need to be working there in the first place. As you can see, in a world where: financing education is astronomical, individuals with degrees fight teenagers for jobs, the cost of living has outpaced earnings, American jobs are shipped off to foreign lands, illegal labor devalues American workers, manufacturing jobs are becoming extinct, schools no longer teach practical skills, and unionization is an antiquated notion ...people are, in actuality, sort of forced to work where they can work, with little hope of advancement.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0017IZOLO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0017IZOLO&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Inner City Pressure</a>" by Flight of The Conchords from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0014DBZXS/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0014DBZXS&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Flight of The Conchords</a></i> released 2008 on Sub Pop</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GAgj3AcOeuc?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
<b>The Dreaded Evil Socialist Living Wage</b><br />
<br />
Let's crunch some numbers.<br />
<br />
Roughly 8% of the United State's population work in the foodservice industry. Not all of them are low-skill, minimum wage employs (less than 10%), but for the sake of this discussion let's assume they are to keep things simple. So far we have about 2,368,720 full-time employees making about $15,080 a year. Again, that number will not be 100% representative because some make more than minimum wage.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Foodservice workers</b>: 2,368,720 foodservice workers</li>
<li><b>Annual wages</b>: $35,720,297,600 in annual wages</li>
<li><b>Non-wage labor costs</b>: $4,429,316,902.40</li>
</ul>
Every year some nearly 40% of all food and hospitality service workers voluntarily terminate (quit), while some nearly 20% are involuntarily terminated (fired). That is a turnover rate of about 60% annually for the industry as a whole. According to Lisa with WyckWyre, an online HR service provider for the restaurant industry, some segments of the foodservice industry, like fast food restaurants, exceed 100% turnover rates, meaning they lose all the workers they had the year before and some of the ones they hired this year. For jobs making less than $30,000 per year turnover costs about 16% of the terminated workers salary to cover for and replace the missing worker. It is probably a safe assumption to say that most people leaving the foodservice industry are making less than $30,000 per year.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Cost of annual turnover to foodservice industry</b>: $5,715,247,616</li>
<li><b>Total real labor cost</b>: $45,864,862,118.40</li>
</ul>
What would it cost the foodservice industry to raise the hourly wage of their workers from the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour to the Washington, D.C. living wage of $13.68 per hour for a single adult? Let us find out. Keep in mind that not every worker makes $7.25 per hour so the gap that needs to be covered is actually less than represented. Also for the sake of this exercise let us assume that increasing the wage of these workers will bring turnover down to the level of similar paying jobs, such as those in the public sector.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>D.C. living wage</b>: $13.68</li>
<li><b>Annual wages</b>: $67,400,506,368</li>
<li><b>Non-wage labor costs</b>: $8,357,662,789.632</li>
<li><b>Rate of turnover</b>: 4%</li>
<li><b>Cost of annual turnover</b>: $2,696,020,254.72</li>
<li><b>Savings via turnover reduction</b>: $3,019,227,361.28</li>
<li><b>Total real labor cost</b>: $78,454,189,412.35</li>
<li><b>Final cost of wage increase</b>: $32,589,327,293.95</li>
</ul>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--MCXsvyMWW0/UgDoip8WLfI/AAAAAAAABvI/w3D9k3yYEHU/s1600/33763812518084416.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--MCXsvyMWW0/UgDoip8WLfI/AAAAAAAABvI/w3D9k3yYEHU/s1600/33763812518084416.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">$32,589,327,293.95 !? Oh, the humanity!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
That's a fairly steep bill to foot just so a bunch of lazy, ambitionless burger-flippers and coffee-pourers can live comfortably ...right? Wrong. It is no paltry sum, for sure. However, when you take into consideration that just ten of the highest paid CEOs in the industry make a combined $766,450,849 in salary, it is hardly unjustified. Even if we could get the CEOs to take a compensation reduction, to help ease the burden, it will fall to the consumer to pay the piper so these bums can afford to live. Darn socialism. So, what is the damage to the American consumer? Sadly, not as much as they would have you believe.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>America's projected fast food bill for 2013</b>: $200 billion ...with a "B," per year.</li>
<li><b>Added cost of the wage increase to America</b>: 16.3%</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uz_8rfhKJnc/UhLeYLCm6zI/AAAAAAAABwY/E1mcDVl2QpY/s1600/3vevjc_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uz_8rfhKJnc/UhLeYLCm6zI/AAAAAAAABwY/E1mcDVl2QpY/s1600/3vevjc_b.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
What the heck? I thought this was supposed to break the economy? That is not even a quarter on the dollar. What gives, why do we not go ahead and do this for goodness sake?<br />
<br />
<b>Republocrats Are Greedy and Stupid, and They Think You Are Too</b><br />
<br />
If the CEOs and other shareholders can get America to pay 16.3% more for the filth they peddle, they most certainly are not going to pass the added profit off to their employees. And, remember those other consequences of less turnover, yeah, that is bad for business. One of the reasons it is so hard for foodservice workers to unionize, is because nobody sticks around long enough to join up. Low wages keep the workers docile and pliant, as they can ill-afford to go long without employment like higher-salaried members of unions in other industries. Moreover, the longer you keep someone employed the higher your cost will be for unemployment insurance, workers compensation risk, healthcare costs, and any promised retirement benefits. If you are a McDonald's executive you want to turn-em-and-burn-em, send them packing to your buddy at Walmart, who will send them to his buddy at Burger King, who will send them to his buddy at Seven Eleven. But it is not just financial, it is political too, which is still financial in the end.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NPCVUO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B005NPCVUO&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Money</a>" by Pink Floyd from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000002U82/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000002U82&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">The Dark Side of the Moon</a></i> released 1973 on Capitol</div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cpbbuaIA3Ds?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
The right might not want to share the wealth, but the left does not want to lose the voter base - the source of their wealth and power. If a Washington, D.C. household of two adults and two children had both parents working full-time for $13.68 per hour they would not only smoke the living wage of $24.95 per hour, but they would obliterate the poverty wage of $10.60 per hour. Seeing as living wage covers everything including food and healthcare that means no more dependence on food stamps, Medicaid, or Obamacare. And no more dependence on the left. One or both parents could go back to school and get an education to get a better job, save money, send their children to private school, go on vacation (Eeek Gads!), plan a retirement (No Medicare Part B *frown*), and god-forbid - open a business and hire some unemployed low-skill workers. Now we all know what happens when you become educated and wealthy: you become conservative. If you are no longer impoverished, left-leaning ideologies begin to look very unappealing. That is why the president proposed that paltry $9.00 minimum wage. A piddly one or two dollar wage increase is easily offset by cost savings in reduced turnover when added to free/low-cost incentives like flexible scheduling. Such a wage would no doubt help many American families scrape along and they could be forever grateful to the left for throwing them some table scraps, but that wage would do absolutely jack for most Americans - like those in D.C. - who would still be living in poverty trembling in fear every time the left says the right is trying to take away their food stamps to build more tanks.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The right is callous, greedy, and douchey, but the left is down-right sinister. The left is going to bark and cry wolf in an attempt to make the right look bad. The right will rise to the task and oblige them with plenty of anti-middle class rhetoric-by-numbers. And so the dance goes. The right keeps their cash and do not have to rub elbows with the nouveau riche at the country club, and the left gets to keep their stranglehold on blue collar America, lording over their empire of kickbacks and political favors. We can allow Congress, the corporations, and the banks to play games with our country like this is one giant game of Monopoly. We can deride the man or the woman who got our order wrong at the drive-thru. And we can twiddle our thumbs as the American Dream becomes the American Nightmare. Meanwhile, $7.25 per hour still will not be a living wage, no matter how you slice it.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Slave to the Wage" by Placebo from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005BC2Z/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00005BC2Z&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Black Market Music</a></i> released 2000 on Hut</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gVT_3PEgDIM?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
Resources:<br />
[1] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/economic-mobility-minimum-wage_n_3704799.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/economic-mobility-minimum-wage_n_3704799.html</a><br />
[2] <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57552899/how-much-does-it-cost-companies-to-lose-employees/">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-57552899/how-much-does-it-cost-companies-to-lose-employees/</a><br />
[3] <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/">http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/</a><br />
[4] <a href="http://www.mybudget360.com/food-service-sector-us-economy-top-employment-sector-growth-economic-recovery/">http://www.mybudget360.com/food-service-sector-us-economy-top-employment-sector-growth-economic-recovery/</a><br />
[5] <a href="http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4117">http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4117</a><br />
[6] <a href="http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1100150000">http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1100150000</a><br />
[7] <a href="http://now.msn.com/americans-spent-dollar200-billion-last-year-on-fast-food-and-beer-alone">http://now.msn.com/americans-spent-dollar200-billion-last-year-on-fast-food-and-beer-alone</a><br />
[8] <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/meal_bundles/dollar_menu.html">http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/meal_bundles/dollar_menu.html</a><br />
[9] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/cost-of-college-degree-increase-12-fold-1120-percent-bloomberg_n_1783700.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/cost-of-college-degree-increase-12-fold-1120-percent-bloomberg_n_1783700.html</a><br />
[10] <a href="http://www2.qsrmagazine.com/articles/features/118/bottom_line-1.phtml">http://www2.qsrmagazine.com/articles/features/118/bottom_line-1.phtml</a><br />
[11] <a href="http://www.wyckwyre.com/">http://www.wyckwyre.com/</a><br />
[12] <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353021.htm">http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353021.htm</a><br />
[13] <a href="http://www.statista.com/statistics/196614/revenue-of-the-us-fast-food-restaurant-industry-since-2002/">http://www.statista.com/statistics/196614/revenue-of-the-us-fast-food-restaurant-industry-since-2002/</a>R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-23215698947090060582013-08-01T04:45:00.000-04:002013-08-02T21:00:25.003-04:00 @bdotTM "Your Struggle and My Struggle are Two Different Things."File Under: We Are In This Together<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nQJNzi4JRV0/UfoboPRAcLI/AAAAAAAABuY/ynIgWF0Ong0/s1600/The_Black_Power_Mixtape_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nQJNzi4JRV0/UfoboPRAcLI/AAAAAAAABuY/ynIgWF0Ong0/s1600/The_Black_Power_Mixtape_5.jpg" height="484" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
That observation comes from <a href="http://www.vibe.com/photo-gallery/cross-examination-dissecting-two-sides-jay-z-and-harry-belafonte-debate" target="_blank">an article</a> posted by VIBE magazine on rapper Jay-Z's response to a 2012 comment by historic entertainer and activist, Harry Belafonte, calling for celebrities of today to take a more meaningful role in social change. The comment really epitomizes the mindset of anyone who could believe that the rapper was justified in his words and manner of attack. And Jay-Z has plenty of sycophants willing to endorse his utterly classless counter-assault.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r9uAmJF_8ms/Ufobru9WkOI/AAAAAAAABug/uJK9N7Jsx44/s1600/539w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r9uAmJF_8ms/Ufobru9WkOI/AAAAAAAABug/uJK9N7Jsx44/s1600/539w.jpg" height="434" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
How could one person get so much wrong in one statement? This statement intimates that Harry Belafonte was not struggling for others, but for himself, and that Civil Rights was only about black people. It implies that the world can be divided cleanly into: black/white, me/you, us/them, rich/poor, Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, or American/Not. It says there is no "our struggle," there is only "your struggle" and "my struggle." It believes that "your struggle" ended sometime before I was born and I have no responsibility as a human being of any race/ethnicity/status to contribute to the ongoing fight. This is the self-serving, me-centric attitude that permeates our society, our politics and our policy. It is the reason asian children manufacture $200 sneakers in horrendous sweatshops for pennies. It is the reason starving, AIDS-infected children die in diamond mines or genocides in Africa. It is the reason thousands of young black men and teenagers are murdered every year in America's inner cities. It is the reason thousands of women suffer abuse and rape in less developed countries. Because their struggles are not my struggle. I have no responsibility to anyone or anything other than myself. My only duty in life is to amass possessions, and shuck-and-jive for Massa in the hopes that one day he gives me my freedom.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-orSMwQxlcnQ/UfobvXd4MjI/AAAAAAAABuo/CYHdhvpGibw/s1600/marlon_brando_2003_06_17.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-orSMwQxlcnQ/UfobvXd4MjI/AAAAAAAABuo/CYHdhvpGibw/s1600/marlon_brando_2003_06_17.jpg" height="385" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Even if you set aside Jay-Z's unmitigated hubris and his gross impertinence for speaking to a man four decades his senior in such an irreverent manner, you have to see that Jay-Z (and those like him) are in prime position to positively impact the lives of millions in a more than monetary way, and they absolutely are not. No one expects every celebrity to be Mother Theresa, and despite his sizeable giving, Jay-Z is far from the gold standard of charity and philanthropy. Every able-bodied, sound-minded man and woman who walks this Earth has a responsibility to leave it better than he or she found it. Those who have more or are given more, should do more. This is not because celebrities are special or have special insight. This is because if those with less are always the ones putting forth the most effort to turn the gears of change, then we as a species are going to get nowhere fast. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The end is not yet. This is a beginning. The times ahead are just as difficult as the times behind." ~Charleston Heston</blockquote>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1u27coFlGXg?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-65130401186390050922013-07-17T12:25:00.000-04:002013-12-02T18:18:16.665-05:00America's Pandemic<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
File Under: Inconvenient Truths</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RvXqyWlnAPM/Ueau4ElE4SI/AAAAAAAABuI/bFfJZgEE6TQ/s1600/1003143_562684649172_1917378297_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RvXqyWlnAPM/Ueau4ElE4SI/AAAAAAAABuI/bFfJZgEE6TQ/s1600/1003143_562684649172_1917378297_n.jpg" height="467" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamie_Till" target="_blank">Mamie Till</a>: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px; text-align: left;">Two months ago I had a nice apartment in Chicago. I had a good job. I had a son. When something happened to the Negroes in the South I said, 'That's their business, not mine.' Now I know how wrong I was. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till" target="_blank">murder of my son</a> has shown me that what happens to any of us, anywhere in the world, had better be the business of us all." (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=562684649172">Source</a>)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
Does anyone know what is the leading cause of death in the United States of America? I'm sure you can guess by the picture that it is not cancer, car accidents, or comorbidities of obesity. It isn't violent crime either. The number one killer is something called Cognitive Dissonance. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank">Cognitive Dissonance Theory</a>, devised by Leon Festinger in 1956, is a fancy way of saying whenever we as humans are presented with information or facts that do not fit with our expectations of reality we feel very uncomfortable. We do not like feeling uncomfortable; therefore, in order to create equilibrium something must change. To <a href="http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/dissonance.htm" target="_blank">reduce dissonance</a> there are three things people usually do:<br />
<ol>
<li>Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.</li>
<li>Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.</li>
<li>Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.</li>
</ol>
We "accentuate the positive," devalue our beliefs, tell ourselves it is not important, tell ourselves we like the thing that conflicts with us, and find other people to co-sign our new beliefs. It is this process of "dissonance reduction" that is the killer, because it makes us believe things that are not true, hold onto beliefs that are unreasonable, not take beneficial action when we should, and take detrimental action when we should not.<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/korGK0yGIDo?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
How do you know if you are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance? Here are some tell-tale signs:<br />
<ul>
<li>Is it 2013 and you are still smoking cigarettes?</li>
<li>Do you believe McDonald's and Pepsico made you fat?</li>
<li>Do you believe you are big-boned and not obese?</li>
<li>Do you believe I can _____ (drink/text) and drive safely?</li>
<li>Do you believe in "clean" coal?</li>
<li>Do you believe coal-burning factories contribute more pollution than automobiles?</li>
<li>Do you believe global warming is a myth?</li>
<li>Do you believe the Second Iraq War and the U.S. War in Afghanistan were warranted?</li>
<li>Do you believe George W. Bush and Barack Obama are NOT war criminals?</li>
<li>Do you believe the death of one black male is more outrageous than the death of thousands of Arabs, Muslims and Middle Easterners?</li>
<li>Do you believe the shooting of one black man by a non-black man is more outrageous than the hundreds of shootings of black men by other black men?</li>
<li>Do you believe that the uncharged, unindicted, unconvicted "terrorists" who are being held as political prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should starve, right along with the guilty?</li>
<li>Do you believe the USA PATRIOT Act was necessary?</li>
<li>Do you believe the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional and well-thought out?</li>
<li>Do you believe the provision in the NDAA allowing for indefinite detentions will never be applied to U.S. citizens?</li>
<li>Do you believe that Danny Manning and Edward Snowden are traitors?</li>
<li>Do you believe that genetically modified organisms are nothing to be concerned about?</li>
<li>Do you believe the War on Drugs is money well-spent?</li>
<li>Do you believe the War on Terror is winnable?</li>
<li>Do you believe the key to making human beings less violent is the regulation of inanimate objects?</li>
<li>Do you believe in pro-life but tacitly approve the murder, torture, and dehumanization of millions?</li>
<li>Do you believe in pro-choice but deny the choices of unborn children and their fathers?</li>
<li>Do you believe that Democrats are the party of the people or that Republicans believe in small government?</li>
<li>Do you believe that what side of the isle you sit on in Congress makes a difference?</li>
<li>Do you believe that the President or even the Congress controls the fate of the country?</li>
<li>Do you believe we are not all in the same sinking boat and those who control the life boats will decide who lives and who drowns based upon what you look like rather than what you can do for them?</li>
<li>Do you believe that problems are so vast, so big, and so long-standing that you couldn't possibly do anything about them?</li>
</ul>
If you answered yes, to any of these questions then you are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance and you are killing America. Cognitive Dissonance is the disease; cancer, diabetes, stroke, violent deaths, poverty, racism, partisanship, warmongering -- those are the symptoms. No matter how severe your case of Cognitive Dissonance is, it does not have to be a terminal affliction. The world has shown America the path to the cure. If Germans can bring down the Wall, if Russians can dismantle Communism, and if the Arab world can depose dictators and resist religious extremism, then we in the United States of America, the progenitors of modern democracy, certainly can overcome the pandemic that is devouring us from the inside.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Anytime there is insufficient reward, there will be dissonance. The general principal seems to be that people come to believe in and love the things they have to suffer for." ~Leon Festinger</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013GH0LC/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0013GH0LC&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Da Art Of Storytellin' (Part 2)</a>" by Outkast from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000BKI1/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00000BKI1&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Aquemini</a></i> released 1998 on LaFace</div>
</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bWiQM-30cPM?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-33524491859695917122013-07-13T14:56:00.000-04:002013-08-01T09:11:49.024-04:00People's Exhibit ZeroFile Under: Clear and Present Danger<br />
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uILiZvOgWJw/UeGibkySVEI/AAAAAAAABt4/Kzp-2Ac6L1E/s1600/stand-your-ground.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uILiZvOgWJw/UeGibkySVEI/AAAAAAAABt4/Kzp-2Ac6L1E/s1600/stand-your-ground.jpg" height="386" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the world waits for the jury to determine George Zimmerman's fate in the death of Trayvon Martin, we must realize what is actually on trial here. With the mainstream media and the Department of Justice firmly entrenched in the camp of the prosecution, we know this is more than just a simple murder trial: this is a partisan battle with far-reaching political implications. What we are really waiting on is not just the exoneration or condemnation of George Zimmerman, but also the decision that will play heavily into the fate of Stand Your Ground as a doctrine and the Second Amendment itself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At this point, I do not believe any reasonable person would, no matter what George Zimmerman did or said, argue against the facts of the case:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Trayvon Martin struck George Zimmerman first;</li>
<li>A scuffle ensued in which George Zimmerman fell to the ground; and</li>
<li>Shortly before being shot, Trayvon Martin was leaning over or straddling George Zimmerman.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
We do not, with sufficient certainty, know anymore than that, but more than that is not necessary to know. The jury must only decide did George Zimmerman have good reason to fear that he could be seriously injured or killed if he did not use force against his attacker.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Critics of George Zimmerman's defense site the age/weight disparity, the severity of Zimmerman's wounds, and the fact that Zimmerman was armed while Martin was not as evidence against Zimmerman plausibly believing he could be seriously harmed or killed. If you can get beyond the arrogance of trying to assume what someone actually felt in a crisis situation, and examine the situation objectively you see those arguments make no sense. Age, weight, gender, the intensity of a fight, even being armed are not reliable predictors of how severe injury or likely death could be in a real world close combat scenario. I turn to the internet to prove the point.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Man vs. Child</b></div>
<div>
<br />
Were that a sanctioned fight, a referee would have called it after the first punch. Age disparity meant nothing. The younger man proved himself more than a threat.<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GNg89seu3Cc?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>David vs. Goliath</b><br />
<br />
Size disparity does not mean you are invulnerable, nor that you are able to use size to your advantage. A smaller fighter is more than capable of causing a problem for a larger opponent. Back-pedaling in the darkness and the rain, it is perfectly possible to lose your footing and your attacker is upon you in an instant, raining down blows.</div>
<div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2u9pY34dHQ0?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Old vs Young</b><br />
<br />
Wrestling is a young man's game, not an old man's game, right? Wrong. Someone you wouldn't expect to get the better of you can, if for no other reason that a mistake on your part and good fortune on their's.</div>
<div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nTWlkou6B1c?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Tony Doesn't Want Any Part of Mom</b></div>
<div>
<br />
It looks like Tony had reason to fear he was in danger of serious bodily harm if he pressed this issue with this young man's mother.<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CjYfhqR7uLs?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>No, This Is Over</b><br />
<br />
NOTE: <i>Sarcasm warning, proceed with caution</i>. When I began watching this I knew the burly, aggressive guy was going to win. I bet you did too.<br />
<div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qH196OEiUbk?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>"Insignificant" External Injuries</b><br />
<br />
The last two videos were included purely for their comedic value. But this next one is serious. Deadly serious.<br />
<br /></div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HECMVdl-9SQ?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<br />
Notice the man conversing, not bleeding at all, get up, and walk away, only to die moments later from apparently very significant injuries. Still not convinced? Well, if you still believe a man has nothing to fear from a boy attacking him, I leave you with this:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ji4iONceJEg?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
That was the family of 46 year-old Ricardo Portillo. He is dead now. The 17 year-old "boy" who killed him has been charged with homicide. The "child" literally punched him to death. The family sobbing in this video could have just as easily been George Zimmerman's. I think George Zimmerman has a low-opinion of the kind of people he thought Trayvon Martin was. He is book smart, but not very intelligent. He is an over-zealous failure, who has to rely on the good graces of others to bail him out of problem situations. Though I would not have made the same choices he made, the choices he made were not illegal, reckless, malicious, or negligible. I don't have any reason to dislike him beyond the fact that Trayvon Martin is no longer alive, able to learn and grow into a good man. The investigation into his death was sluggish and bungled, yes, but ultimately Trayvon Martin is dead and gone and his death was no crime. There is nothing we can do for Trayvon Martin or his family at this point. But we can end the cycle of tragedy and bitterness. We can find George Zimmerman not guilty.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://longwelllawyers.com/2013/02/jurors-tell-longwell-lawyers-why-they-acquitted/" target="_blank">Timothy Davis Sr.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oAjMi227Y7g?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-87709174698657921612013-07-09T14:30:00.000-04:002013-08-01T09:16:39.939-04:00Don't Believe The HypeFile Under: Shenanigans!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"New Indiana Law Makes It A Felony For Same-Sex Couples To Apply For A Marriage License"</b> ~ <i>The New Civil Rights Movement</i>, 2013</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P-JTpyN7EnM/UdxWAe69HVI/AAAAAAAABto/-ZdsOjhnn1s/s1600/liar-liar-pants-on-fire_o_1338347.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P-JTpyN7EnM/UdxWAe69HVI/AAAAAAAABto/-ZdsOjhnn1s/s1600/liar-liar-pants-on-fire_o_1338347.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
That is the headline of <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/indiana-law-makes-it-a-felony-for-same-sex-couples-to-apply-for-a-marriage-license/legislation/2013/07/08/70698" target="_blank">this article</a>. In a separate op-ed piece, <a href="http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2013/07/08/op-ed-even-though-it%E2%80%99s-legal-i-still-can%E2%80%99t-marry-my-girlfriend" target="_blank">another writer</a> claims that the reason her and her felonious lover (who went 2,400 miles away to accept the only job she could find) cannot be together despite it being legal in their home state is because they are a gay minority couple and nothing to do with her partner's felonious past, the horrible job market in this pseudo-recovery, and her backing a political party that doesn't really care about the poor ...or gays. This is why we cannot get anywhere. No, I don't mean because gays are "ruining America." What I am referring to is the premium we put on promoting our own views, having sensational headlines, and demonizing our opponents. Truth is irrelevant. Google search keywords from this article and you will find several liberal bloggers and other journalists decrying Indiana for getting entrenched in their position against homosexual equality. The impression you get is that Indiana has targeted the gay community for persecution by creating a new felony just for the audacity of filing an application for a marriage license. Someone shared this link with the comment: "Nothing more important to worry about in Indiana?" Well if you accept the article on face value, it would seem that lawmakers in Indiana got bored and decided to pick on gays. What do you see if you investigate further?<br />
<br />
Indiana's marriage law allows for the unencumbered licensing and solemnization of a union between one male and one female age 18 or older, not more closely related than second cousin. On the application for a marriage license there is a space for the name of the male and the name of the female. Falsifying an application, registering ineligible individuals, or solemnizing the union of ineligible individuals has been a Class D felony since 1997. The legislature did not change what was illegal or make something that was not previously a felony now a felony. So what did they do? What they did (without regard to gays, blacks, poor, immigrants or any other group) was to revamp the felony system. Starting 7/1/14 felonies will be no longer "Classed" A-D, instead they will be Level 1-6. Beginning in 2014 what was a Class D felony will now be a Level 6 felony, meaning those offenses were actually degraded in severity. So everything that the author spoke about will remain a felony, the least severe felony in fact.<br />
<br />
Moreover, nothing about this legislative action stops anyone from engaging in civil disobedience. You and your partner can still go to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license and if you are eligible you will be granted one after paying the fee. If you are ineligible you can demand equal accommodation under the law. If somehow the clerk is having an off day and allows you to file your application, put your partner's name in the free space and claim he or she identifies as that gender. It will make a fine protest.<br />
<br />
Therefore, could we please stop with the lies and the shenanigans? If you want relevance go out and earn it. Stop trying to play the American people for fools. In the meantime, your very fashionable Capri pants have burst into flames.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PMAAY2/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B002PMAAY2&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Don't Believe The Hype</a>" by Public Enemy from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000024K1/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0000024K1&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back</a></i> released 1988 on Def Jam</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LK8sxngSWaU?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-89869760998530922182013-07-04T02:18:00.001-04:002013-07-04T02:18:59.954-04:00The Knight Writer and Friends' 100 LIKEs Facebook Giveaway<div>
File Under: Giveaways</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qPzgtGCvYIk/UdJ5zRBhs2I/AAAAAAAABtE/O6U1-bPXX7A/s700/keep-calm-and-celebrate-100-likes-8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qPzgtGCvYIk/UdJ5zRBhs2I/AAAAAAAABtE/O6U1-bPXX7A/s700/keep-calm-and-celebrate-100-likes-8.png" height="640" width="548" /></a></div>
<center style="text-align: left;">
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
Happy Independence Day, America! In honor of you all, my faithful compatriots in The Revolution, and to say thanks for 100 LIKEs on Facebook, I am teaming up with my friends at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LightShineDesigns" target="_blank">LightShine Designs</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Meisterkhan/141035946088439" target="_blank">Meisterkhan</a> to bring you this awesome FREE giveaway. Entering is easy! Here is what you have to do:</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
<ol>
<li><b>LIKE</b> these pages: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RConradBane" target="_blank">The Revolution Will Not Be Televised</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LightShineDesigns" target="_blank">LightShine Designs</a>, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Meisterkhan/141035946088439" target="_blank">Meisterkhan</a>.</li>
<li><b>LIKE</b> and <b>SHARE</b> this <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=242224152593442" target="_blank">picture</a>.</li>
<li>BOOM! You're entered!!!</li>
</ol>
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
The contest ends 08/04/2013 @ midnight. Check out the giveaway below to see how you can earn <b>extra </b>entries <i>EVERYDAY</i>, and increase your chances to win!</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
</center>
<center>
</center>
<center>
<a class="rafl" href="http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/ca3fea0/" id="rc-ca3fea0" rel="nofollow">a Rafflecopter giveaway</a>
<script src="//d12vno17mo87cx.cloudfront.net/embed/rafl/cptr.js"></script>
</center>
<center>
</center>
<center>
</center>
<center>
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011Z3ESI/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0011Z3ESI&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Land of Confusion</a>" by Disturbed from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AGTQKO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000AGTQKO&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">10,000 Fists</a></i> released 2005 on Reprise</center>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Gbp3I2evSXo?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-71458927963004789232013-07-03T21:54:00.000-04:002013-07-03T21:59:07.705-04:00Martyrs and PawnsFile Under: The Law Is Not Mocked<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bZufYT8_ZEU/UdTR6_BymVI/AAAAAAAABtY/8Yjfkf2j9nA/s923/041513_0741_objectivity2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bZufYT8_ZEU/UdTR6_BymVI/AAAAAAAABtY/8Yjfkf2j9nA/s923/041513_0741_objectivity2.jpg" height="372" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This is a spillover of two separate conversations. In the first conversation, I erroneously stated Zimmerman was charged with first-degree murder. In response to a photograph highlighting the testimony of the doctor during the trial, which noted Zimmerman's injuries on the night of Trayvon's death were "insignificant," I asked, "how significant George Zimmerman's wounds would have been if he had not shot Trayvon Martin?" Here is the my two cents on George Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial:<br />
<br />
We know who killed Trayvon Martin, why he was killed, with what he was killed, and when his death occurred? What we do not know is how the altercation that lead to Trayvon's death was precipitated? So who committed a crime first? Zimmerman certainly committed the first mistake, but did he commit a crime? Following someone is not a crime, asking someone a question also is not a crime, and not listening to a 911 operator is not a crime. 911 operators are not authority figures, they cannot tell you what to do. If Zimmerman stopped Martin and prevented him from leaving or gave him the impression that he could not leave, that would be a crime: false imprisonment. However, if Martin stopped of his own free will, then no crime was committed. Approaching someone in a public place is not a crime either. The jury must decide who assaulted whom first.<br />
<br />
If George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon Martin probably would not have doubled-back to confront him and Trayvon would likely still be alive. If Trayvon Martin had kept walking, he would definitely be alive today. If Trayvon Martin had called 911 instead of his girlfriend, he might still be dead but at least we would have a reliable record of what happened. As someone else pointed out: "they both did something stupid." The question is who committed a crime first. Zimmerman is facing a minimum of 25 years.l even manslaughter is a minimum of nine and a quarter. Given the evidence, I think it would be a mistake to convict Zimmerman of murder. That would be a miscarriage of justice.<br />
<br />
What is on trial here is not really George Zimmerman: Trayvon attacked Zimmerman - case closed. What is on trial is the handling of the investigation, the racial profiling of Martin by Zimmerman and the police, and the validity of stand your ground laws. If Martin had killed Zimmerman he would have went to jail that night and been held or no bond or a bond of ridiculous proportions. The shooter not the victim would have been subjected to a toxicology screening. If the media covered the story at all, the media would have spread images of Trayvon that portrayed him as the violence-loving, rebellious, drug-using wannabe thug that he was. Trayvon has been made a false martyr and Zimmerman, should Zimmerman be convicted, will become the sacrificial pawn that helps someone else jockey for position to execute their political checkmate.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00137WUXE/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00137WUXE&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Hurricane</a>" by Bob Dylan from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00026WU50/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00026WU50&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Desire</a></i> released 1975 on Columbia</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kMHWSAL2IoA?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-69591822977495513062013-07-02T02:37:00.000-04:002013-08-15T16:05:36.044-04:00Diagnosing America's Cancer<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
File Under: It Is In Our Hands<br />
<br />
V22.2, how many of you know what that is? Can you guess?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zWF-yObab_I/UdJoaHG-rtI/AAAAAAAABsg/AHlmreUSCyo/s618/diagnosis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zWF-yObab_I/UdJoaHG-rtI/AAAAAAAABsg/AHlmreUSCyo/s618/diagnosis.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a>To many of my compatriots in the health industry, you will recognize what that is immediately. That is the ICD-9 diagnostic code for "Pregnant state, incidental." In laymen's terms that is: a normal pregnancy, without complications. This is what a doctor would put in your medical chart or on an insurance claim to denote that the patient is pregnant. Why is this important? It is important because:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>You only diagnose diseases.</b></blockquote>
<br />
If you look at pregnancy as a disease, it makes an ironic sort of sense: everyone who has ever been diagnosed with pregnancy has died. Making children the most lethal disease to ever afflict humankind. That might bring a chuckle to some of you with children, but therein is the problem with abortion, women's health rights, and the debate surrounding the two. In the modern world children are considered, and thus treated like, a disease. Children are suffered not cherished; they are something to be avoided, medicated, or destroyed. We have already, however grudgingly, conceded that everyone has a right to suitable healthcare. How dare someone dictate to someone else what is appropriate healthcare, or more precisely what they should do about a disease that is infecting their own body?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7bciNlQ2onk/UdJz1LzyqEI/AAAAAAAABss/4cQMQL6Bbz4/s550/3486137_orig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7bciNlQ2onk/UdJz1LzyqEI/AAAAAAAABss/4cQMQL6Bbz4/s550/3486137_orig.jpg" height="274" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Conservatives have latched onto the very valid point that unborn children are not diseases without human rights, and they are using it as a cudgel to bludgeon Liberals. Liberals, with their ideology threatened, have hidden behind the shield of women's health rights and freedom of choice and are firing back. What has essentially happened is that the issue of sanctioned murder has metastasized itself onto women's health like a cancer, rendering it inoperable because Liberals will not sacrifice the cancer to save the host. In this stalemate millions of unborn children continue to die, healthcare reform suffers, women suffer, and the country suffers from divisive politics and a lack of leadership.<br />
<br />
If you have a defective heart valve, a chemical imbalance, a stroke, underdeveloped lungs, a calcium deficiency, a traumatic head injury, amenorrhea, or any number of other illnesses, these are all valid illnesses with definable root causes inside the body and mind. Everyone deserves access to technologies which alleviate the suffering from these diseases. However, to address unborn children, ovarian cysts, amenorrhea, and erectile dysfunction with one policy, so as to say that they are one-in-the-same is morally, ethically, scientifically, and spiritually bankrupt.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n8GV1JRR4kU/UdJ0A2nfn_I/AAAAAAAABs0/BSYqvedd57M/s1400/XSiGHT_Sydney_Pregnancy_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n8GV1JRR4kU/UdJ0A2nfn_I/AAAAAAAABs0/BSYqvedd57M/s1400/XSiGHT_Sydney_Pregnancy_3.jpg" height="321" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Some 40% of pregnancies are unplanned, and of those perhaps 50% are unwanted. According to scientists, humanity was unplanned, and judging form all the species that once existed but now do not or all the species, in all the galaxies that never existed at all -- one could say the Universe probably doesn't want us. And yet, here we remain -- unaborted. Without question both men and women deserve access to comprehensive healthcare for all their bodily systems. That care does not have to be sacrificed in order for us to redress this Nation's position on medically unnecessary abortions. To do so, all we must do is put down our cudgels and shields, and divorce the issue of women's health from the cancer of abortion.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://music.zackhemsey.com/track/waiting-between-worlds" target="_blank">Waiting Between Worlds</a>" by Zack Hemsey from <i><a href="http://music.zackhemsey.com/album/the-way" target="_blank">The Way</a></i> released 2011 on Zack Hemsey Publishing</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" mozallowfullscreen="" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/39614634?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=ffffff" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-52965764937239878012013-06-26T23:23:00.000-04:002013-08-15T16:07:15.181-04:00What Would You Do?File Under: Think About It<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HzyXo9cgKhw/UcusKX969ZI/AAAAAAAABrk/2GROcQXOtvg/s1600/cracked-egg-girlreporter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HzyXo9cgKhw/UcusKX969ZI/AAAAAAAABrk/2GROcQXOtvg/s1600/cracked-egg-girlreporter.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
What if human beings didn't give birth to live young? What if they laid eggs like birds, reptiles or fish? What if what you see in this picture is not the beginning of scrambled eggs, but rather the end of a human life, oozing out of that cracked shell? Human beings might not be the only animals to kill the young, but humans are the only animals who willingly kill their own young. Penguin fathers die in the freezing cold protecting their unborn children, because to them what is inside that egg isn't just alive, it is the future of all penguins as far as that father is concerned. Is an unborn human any less important than an unborn penguin?<br />
<br />
If in the mid-twentieth century Strict Constructionists had not fled the Democratic party, would the murder of unborn children be judged along party lines? If humans did not carry babies inside them, would a father still have no say in the fate of his unborn child? If all you had to think about is the person growing inside that egg, would the "Pro Choice" argument finally focus on the unborn human's rights? If there were no GOD in a mystical far-off Heaven, would the wholesale slaughter of millions of future scientists, engineers, philosophers, and musicians be a good thing for humanity?<br />
<br />
If you had to think about someone other than yourself, your rights, your choices, your ideas and beliefs ...if you had to think about someone else, some innocent as-yet-unborn person, their rights, their choices, their ideas and beliefs -- what would you choose? If you could hold the essence of life in your hand, would you protect and preserve it -- or would you crush it and discard it like refuse?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0051G6ZCK/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0051G6ZCK&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">This Woman's Work (Director's Cut)</a>" by Kate Bush from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S6RIDY/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004S6RIDY&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Director's Cut</a></i> released 2011 on Fish People Music</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/W2ECr2YxI-0?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-13261248032383359942013-06-19T15:14:00.001-04:002013-06-19T15:14:33.420-04:00#LaRevolucion: Eyes Not Wide ShutReading about the documentary, “<b><a href="http://www.looktothestars.org/news/10352-ice-t-narrates-gun-control-film-focusing-on-civil-rights" target="_blank">Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire</a></b>,” hosted by rapper and actor Ice-T, I had an epiphany. I finally realized what the problem is: guns are not sexy. Not guns themselves, but the idea and those who represent that idea. I'm not saying Ice-T is not an attractive man. However, there is a certain segment of society who considers anything he has to say, no matter how right it is, to be fruit of the poisoned tree – especially if it is something they do not like or care about. They are prejudiced, and rightfully so if those prejudices are based solely upon his works as a younger man. The real problem is the <a href="http://nra.org/" target="_blank">Wayne LaPierre</a>s, the <a href="http://gunowners.org/" target="_blank">Larry Pratt</a>s, and the bow-tie-wearing <a href="http://www.saf.org/" target="_blank">Alan Gottlieb</a>s. They scream rich, white, stodgy, out-of-touch, aloof, abrasive, and corporate. And in Gottlieb's case, dorky and a little creepy. Frankly, the only thing unapologetic about being rich and white that remains popular right now is cheesecake, and even that could be burned upon the low-carb/no-carb cross at any moment. Moreover, when the CEO of Bushmaster breaks a six-month silence to comment on the tragedy of Newtown and what he has to say is about as deep as a kiddy-pool, you really begin to not want to invite Second Amendment Advocates over for dinner. They are desperately in need of some "regular guy" in black-face to shuck-and-jive and show Americans that guns are OK, cool, and sexy.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LNPZ_24Jv18/UcIA1cTLV5I/AAAAAAAABoA/gFX8lBphzy8/s1600/alan-rickman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LNPZ_24Jv18/UcIA1cTLV5I/AAAAAAAABoA/gFX8lBphzy8/s1600/alan-rickman.jpg" height="276" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"I would like to talk to you about protecting your civil liberties from encroachment by your corrupt government officials" Did you say it in Snape's voice?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In contrast, who doesn't want to have dinner with Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Beyonce, Will Ferrell, or even Barack Obama? They are sexy, talented, smart, funny, and charming; but most important they are famous and adored by millions. They are in the business of being likable, and have cadres of lawyers, accountants, and bodyguards to see to the liberties they encourage you to disregard as they sit isolated in in their gated communities on hill-top mansion estates. In a world where Justin Beiber, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne can not only be considered musicians, but also be wildly successful or where Jersey Shore is entertainment is it any wonder nobody cares about serious things like Constitutional Rights or government corruption?
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k9-u7HuRVqs/UcIBh6OXOfI/AAAAAAAABoI/SmLdqksK2Uo/s1600/tumblr_l1i0eiRr221qb2wjzo1_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k9-u7HuRVqs/UcIBh6OXOfI/AAAAAAAABoI/SmLdqksK2Uo/s1600/tumblr_l1i0eiRr221qb2wjzo1_1280.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"I'm Morgan Freeman, and this is Matt Damon. I think you should let Matt Damon have his way with your daughters. And don't go listening to those cookey conspiracy theorists either. Your government loves you and is here to protect and serve. Morgan Freeman, Morgan Freeman ...Morgan Freeman."</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
To all the flannel shirt-clad, Pabst Blue Ribbon hipsters born after 1989, they think revolutionaries are convicted felons or the likes of Che Guevara because their formerly anti-American, ex-convict professors or some ex-convict musician told them so. At the other end of the spectrum are the battered, betrayed, and frightened individuals, from boomers to 70s babies, whose economic trains ran out of fuel long ago and who are now merely hoping they can pay for that hipster's education and coast into retirement in one piece. America is choking to death on the Left/Right Paradigm, and those vacuous celebrities are so well-liked because they are the icing and cherries on a crap cake. Celebrities make the common people feel good about how bad things are, ignore how bad things will become, and feel happy or righteous doing doing absolutely nothing of meaning about it.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C-opHq5Dys4/UcIC8oP2nvI/AAAAAAAABoY/Wbir1MX5baI/s1600/ErnestoChe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C-opHq5Dys4/UcIC8oP2nvI/AAAAAAAABoY/Wbir1MX5baI/s1600/ErnestoChe.jpg" height="400" width="326" /></a></div>
<br />
I get it: you have a lot on your plates; you have been lied to, used, and abused; and, you are just plain old sick and tired. I get it, I honestly do. However, it is not our piece of icing and sprinkle-covered excrement cake passed off as The American Dream that is at stake here. We are fighting for so much more than that. The decisions we make, the causes we support, and the stands we take are all for the future of America and the future of the world. We can not allow a mindless face-for-hire to dictate to us what is beneficial or detrimental for us and our families. We must dig deep into our hearts and souls for personal truth, use our own minds to think logically, and use our own voice to speak our will into existence. The time is now to do away with superficial values or distractions. Refuse to prostrate yourself before the false idols set before you on your TV screens by the media, corporations, and government – and cast them down. A revolution is coming. The world as we know it is ending. You have to decide for yourself whether it will be a good change or a bad change – whether it will be a world in which you wish to live.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00122L1LW/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00122L1LW&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Arrival to Earth</a>" by Steve Jablonsky from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VFGQHK/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000VFGQHK&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Transformers: The Score</a></i> released 2007 on Warner Bros.</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpH5L8zCtSk" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-70762909583928601292013-05-23T06:40:00.001-04:002013-05-23T06:47:45.202-04:00We Cannot Legislate EvilFile Under: Handwriting on the Wall<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="350" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="myframe" scrolling="auto" src="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938197/shooting-in-woolwich-london.html" vspace="0" width="750"></iframe></center>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(If you cannot see the article above, refresh this page or view article on <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938197/shooting-in-woolwich-london.html" target="_blank">webpage</a>)</blockquote>
You probably will not see this give much if any attention at all in the American Mainstream Media (MSM). However, you need to bear witness to the simple truth that no matter what laws you pass, it is not the law, but rather it is failed governmental policies and the evil in humankind's hearts that leads to violence.
<br />
<blockquote>
“When he was dead, they dragged him out into the road and left him there. It was strange, they didn’t run off, they just stood there as if they were waiting for the police. It must’ve taken about 20 minutes for the police to arrive, I think it must’ve been because they were waiting for armed police. [...] Lou Peluola, 53, arrived on the scene shortly after the incident when he saw one attacker standing over a body before the police arrived 20 minutes later. He said: "People were afraid asking: ‘where are the police?’ They took a long time to arrive. [...] I panicked, rang the police and ran away."</blockquote>
This happened not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or some Sub-Saharan African war zone, but rather this happened in broad daylight, in the middle of one of the world's leading First World nations. How many people could have put these two sociopaths down while the police took their time arriving? What if they had targeted civilians? Well Lou, when your right to defend yourself is violated by your government, that is all you can do - wait 20 minutes while the police find firearms - because, when you criminalize the right to bear arms, only criminals will bear arms.<br />
<br />
What will the UK do now: ban cars? Ban kitchen knives? Ban Islam? Give each one of these murderers two consecutive "life" sentences? Which one of those measures would have prevented this man's untimely, grizzly demise? None of them. Not one law could have saved this man because no law would have dissuaded these two monsters from committing this heinous act by any means necessary. They did not care about having concealable firearms or how many people they could shoot before reloading - hell, they did not even care about escaping justice. They were intent on venting their hatred and emotionally traumatizing as many people as they could in the process.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JehqYUCPozc/UZ3omX-9MZI/AAAAAAAABl0/-qO2VH188Oc/s1600/the-world-is-a-dangerous-place-to-live-not-because-of-the-people-who-are-evil-but-because-of-the-people-who-don_t-do-anything-about-it.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JehqYUCPozc/UZ3omX-9MZI/AAAAAAAABl0/-qO2VH188Oc/s1600/the-world-is-a-dangerous-place-to-live-not-because-of-the-people-who-are-evil-but-because-of-the-people-who-don_t-do-anything-about-it.png" height="319" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
All those years ago, when the UK thought they were doing something about the violence in their country all they did was turn their backs on it, close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and pretended it no longer existed. Ignoring it, did not make it go away. Evil exists. It can take root inside anyone one of us; and, no amount of legislation will protects us from ourselves.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00136JD9Y/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00136JD9Y&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">We Didn't Start the Fire (Original)</a>" by Bill Joel from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000DCHL/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00000DCHL&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Storm Front</a></i> released 1989 on Sony</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DYK9-Cl5lRU?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-13409126509876936282013-05-16T03:28:00.002-04:002013-05-16T03:30:33.358-04:00The Moment of ChoiceFile Under: Conundrums and Other Oddities<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4zXdR2TeVQ0/UZSJ3khQLiI/AAAAAAAABlY/tFr3N07sGXE/s1600/rescue-worker-carries-a-child.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4zXdR2TeVQ0/UZSJ3khQLiI/AAAAAAAABlY/tFr3N07sGXE/s1600/rescue-worker-carries-a-child.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
If you would take a moment to read the following and respond to the survey, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you.<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="750" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1n4_6-ay0-qZPavxwXDwS9jPZudKibooYBOASZdRTH7w/viewform?embedded=true" width="760">Loading...</iframe></center>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013DC6GY/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0013DC6GY&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Circles</a>" by Incubus from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005QG9J/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00005QG9J&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Morning View</a></i> released 2001 on Epic/Immortal</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OLodW1nyZ4s?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-61102058059345663122013-05-09T16:28:00.000-04:002013-05-09T17:10:40.449-04:00The Great Gotcha?File Under: Dangerous Thoughts<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4cXZOOV2wYw/UYwELX6iAwI/AAAAAAAABlI/wBhybUieAu4/s1600/k-bigpic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4cXZOOV2wYw/UYwELX6iAwI/AAAAAAAABlI/wBhybUieAu4/s1600/k-bigpic.jpg" height="360" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here is a sociological experiment that shows what happens when a prepared person with an agenda asks deep philosophical questions to random, uninformed, and sometimes inarticulate people who willingly buy $8 dollar coffees, buy packs of cancer causing dirt weed rolled in paper, don't know what Ruby Ridge refers to, and do not remember who Ted Kaczynski or James Earl Ray were. Let's watch:<br />
<div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="420" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QJtjqLUHYoY" width="560"></iframe></center>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Fascinating. This obviously proves his point. Right? Wrong.<br />
<br />
We are talking about two things here: attraction and preference. I am sure the post-PC scientific community and most lifestyle advocates are going to disagree with this assessment. However, here we go anyway. Attraction is a biochemical process which can, to an extent, be influenced by culture and societal norms. While there are near universal constants which describe how a male or female brain responds to certain external physical and biochemical stimuli, the details of attraction have change throughout time and in different regions due to factors such as evolutionary stress, scientific enlightenment, and social mores. Attraction is innate, and again near universal, it predates exposure to the object of attraction.<br />
<br />
This is where the discussion gets hairy. Preference is almost exclusively a learned thought or behavior that is predicated upon exposure to an object, culture, or societal norms. Unless the topic is biochemical aversion (i.e. food allergy), which is not truthfully a preference, humans are not born with preferences without the presence of a physiological abnormality whether it be biochemical or structural in nature. Preferences require exposure, experience association, and usually repeated indoctrination. In other words you have to become aware of something, some event has to create a positive or negative memory in your brain, and usually that association needs to be reinforced some way in order for a person to form a preference.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What does all of that have to do with the above video? It is very simple. Is the questioner talking about attraction or preference? If we are talking about attraction, we are talking about a biochemical process within the physiology of a human. If my heart valves form differently, my spleen forms differently, or my spine develops differently science says I have a disorder, an illness or disease if you will. In the same way that if a person's brain forms differently and that abnormality affects biochemical processes then that person is said to be suffering from a neuropsychiatric disorder. Just like rage, depression, anxiety, paranoia, autism, pedophilia, and psychosis are biochemical processes often influenced by the structure of the brain, so also is attraction. Validly so, a person cannot choose (in the traditional sense) to have a disease and are in fact often born with it. As such, individuals with disabling conditions are already protected by laws such as The Americans with Disabilities Act. However, that would require reversing the notion that homosexuality is in fact not a disease, which I do not think that is going to happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand, if the questioner is asking about preference, we are getting into a completely different animal. I want everyone to think about exactly how they learned to: talk, read, use the toilet, and develop affection for people other than your mother. Cannot do it, can you? That is because all this indoctrination happened at a time which predates your greater consciousness and "random access memory." But, do not be misled that information is in your brain somewhere. Just like the demarcation between when you had no concept of differences and benefits of gender and when you began to be indoctrinated to prefer one over the other for certain societal roles. For most people this is a relatively smooth, trauma-free experience that commences from the moment of birth. For others this process is marked by dramatic tribulations creating revolutions in thinking, a post-indoctrination re-indoctrination or brainwashing. However you come to a preference there is a point wherein A) your indoctrination begins, B) your preference solidifies and C) you make a choice. For the vast majority of people, this entire process usually happens in their individual "prehistory," in the nebulous time before your "first memory."<br />
<br />
This difference has two bearings on this video. First the questioner asked the respondents to comment on a process they could not scientifically observe or remember without significant assistance if it can be remembered at all. Secondly, and more interestingly, the respondents do not realize that between when as an infant or toddler they first formed preferences and when they encountered the cameraman, society had continually exposed them to other ideas. Therefore, at some time after the point where all earlier memories are gray and fuzzy (when they first formed a preference) they reaffirmed their preferences. In plain English: several times in their lives, every last one of them chose to be straight.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007GU5EQW/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B007GU5EQW&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Outside</a>" by George Michael from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000DHRX/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00000DHRX&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Ladies & Gentlemen: The Best of George Michael</a></i> released 1998 on Epic</div>
</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gwZAYdHcDtU" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-53834136386200128812013-04-17T21:17:00.000-04:002013-05-03T08:43:13.919-04:00Fanaticism Goes Full-Retard<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
File Under: I cannot make this stuff up.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3-Bb1JXtzes/UW9EPr5ySZI/AAAAAAAABjk/tHqs4uK7lss/s1600/31_1klan_girl_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3-Bb1JXtzes/UW9EPr5ySZI/AAAAAAAABjk/tHqs4uK7lss/s1600/31_1klan_girl_.jpg" height="417" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The "true" Klan (Ku Klux Klan) is not racist, doesn't believe in hate, and is against violence. That wasn't a joke, at least not on my part. Check out the video:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hsFYXEM3SU?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
All-righty. As the great-grandson of two sets of sharecroppers from the deep south, one of which died as a result of injuries suffered in a house fire set by the Klan, that certainly is shocking news to me. To the Inter-webs I went a-looking. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan" target="_blank">The Ku Klux Klan</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the U.S."</blockquote>
<br />
Since as early as I can remember, the Klan has always been one unified, national organization all about White Power and the death of anyone who was not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. <br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TgV9ZtjOCBA?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
So how did we go from lynching blacks, burning crosses to terrorize people, and filibustering civil rights amendments on Capitol Hill to joining forces with Black gang members to thwart a Klan rally? Here is Imperial Grand Wizard Bradley Jenkins in his own words from the pages of <i><a href="http://www.vice.com/read/theres-a-new-klan-in-town-and-theyre-not-racist" target="_blank">VICE</a> </i>(click link for full interview):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong style="font-style: inherit;">"VICE: Hi Bradley. What did you mean when you said I'd spoken to a “fake Klan”?</strong></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong style="font-style: inherit;">Bradley Jenkins:</strong> We call these other Klans "pop-up Klans." Our government made it very easy for people to call themselves Klans by splitting all the Klans up. The United Klans of America are the true Klan—we have a history, we have a charter. We're not a hate organization, we're just a fraternal white organization. [...]</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong style="font-style: inherit;">And you consider Thomas Robb’s Knights of the KKK to be a pop-up Klan?</strong></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Oh, I won't even tell you what I think of that man. He used to be a good Klansman, but look at the difference between his website and ours: he's begging for money on every page. Sure, it takes money to operate, but begging for $40 to $50 a month from people who are losing their jobs just isn't right. [...]</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong style="font-style: inherit;">So you don’t see the UKA as a hate organization?</strong></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Putting on public rallies with the robes and the hoods and screaming and hollering doesn't accomplish anything. Let me tell you what I hate: I hate that my country is going down the tubes and that Europe is going down the tubes. I hate that we have people who are totally blind to the Islamization of our world. [...]</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong style="font-style: inherit;">The UKA has been linked with some very serious incidents in the past, though?</strong></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">That was a different time and it's something you can't change. But if you look at other Klan organizations, they have scum in their ranks because they don't do background checks. It's all about quantity to them, whereas United Klans of America is concerned with quality. I'm a military veteran and an ex-cop. In fact, child molesters and immigration are two of our biggest issues. The Klan leadership figures out ways to inform communities about those issues without telling them it's coming from the Klan. We don't really want them knowing it's coming from the Klan, actually. The Klan is a means to an end. [...]</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong>If you're not racist, why not start a new organization than become the leader of one with a long history of racism?</strong></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Because there has to be someone who stands up and establishes what we're about. Myself and the four other Imperial wizards have come to the conclusion that 2013 is the time for that to happen. It will be the year that people realize the Klan is not a huge hate organization."</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j9eBgJ2dtZQ/UW9Ezc-EomI/AAAAAAAABjw/EJzWUJCdxww/s1600/go-home-kkk_o_868785.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j9eBgJ2dtZQ/UW9Ezc-EomI/AAAAAAAABjw/EJzWUJCdxww/s1600/go-home-kkk_o_868785.jpg" height="299" width="320" /></a>Well, smack me on my bottom and call me Susan (I don't know why you would do that, but something needed to go right there for transition). Fascinating.<br />
<br />
So as you probably surmised the title of this blog entry, I am not buying this radical change of heart on Klan ideology. It seems that as tolerance seeps its way into the deepest roots of hate and divisiveness in America, the KKK (real, fake, or otherwise) is finding its numbers, wealth, and relevance dwindling. Like the Dixiecrats (who were no longer in power or the mode) and the Republicans (who were getting trounced in elections) of old, this new breed of "true" Klan recognized it is time for the old flippity-flop and some good ol' fashioned spin-doctoring. After decades of White Bashing over active and passive white complicity in hundreds of years of discrimination, suppression, and genocide one of these "educated" Klansman got the idea that White Pride would be a much more appealing draw than the messy business of killing in the name of White Supremacy. Furthermore, maybe, just maybe if they could successfully remove themselves far enough away from the negative image they created for themselves then they could navigated the Hate Boat back into the waters of the power elite, thus reintroducing their extreme ideology back into national policy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ovH2M2EZQFc/UW9FPJJDyhI/AAAAAAAABj0/QcSst81YYQk/s1600/kkk_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ovH2M2EZQFc/UW9FPJJDyhI/AAAAAAAABj0/QcSst81YYQk/s1600/kkk_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg" height="273" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
However, am I wrong? Is there room for organizations like UKA in America, or the world? Are they different from groups like: Aryan Nations, IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda? Moreover, is there any reaching across the isle of moderation and civility with open arms to formerly militant extremists in the wake of a true enlightenment and reformation? In essence, is a change of this magnitude possible and are we as reasoned people obligated to embrace it? I do not know. Maybe we are co-dependent on our connections to the past, even the negative ones, and like Albi and the badly-burned Albanian boy, it's just different, very different. Maybe I am an intellectual dinosaur and DaJuan Horton and Bradley Jenkins are the what the new face of America will be: an inconceivable coalition of diverse people with hard to categorize and label beliefs. Mayhaps, we will come to judge this new Klan by the same criteria we judged the old -- by its words and deeds.<br />
<br />
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000SX9ZDC/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000SX9ZDC&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Don't Let the Man Get You Down</a>" by Fatboy Slim from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002W4USY/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0002W4USY&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Palookaville</a></i> released 2004 on Astralwerks<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OqKoz5cVxqU?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-33785957261784706992013-04-01T11:20:00.000-04:002015-09-17T13:42:14.446-04:00Death On Wheels<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
File Under: Don't Confuse Me With Facts<br />
<br />
In a vain attempt to convince
self-professed reasonable people that they need not give up their
Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms many
well-meaning firearms proponents will say something to the effect of:
“More people die in automobile accidents each year in America that
are ever killed by firearms, why don't you ban cars or limit the
speed of cars to XXX mph?” To which clever and equally earnest
firearm opponents quickly retort with: “Oh yeah, well automobiles
are not designed to kill, guns were.” Certainly a snappy reply,
but what is the reality of the situation? Let's find out using the
dreaded .223 Winchester (5.56x45mm NATO) fired from a semi-automatic
AR-15 rifle with a 20” barrel and a 30-round magazine AND my benign
1996 Ford Crown Victoria as test subjects.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AEoBVT_cZgE/UVmiJLgFc8I/AAAAAAAABi0/nl94pev8Bp0/s1600/hellokitty_ar15assault_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AEoBVT_cZgE/UVmiJLgFc8I/AAAAAAAABi0/nl94pev8Bp0/s1600/hellokitty_ar15assault_2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An AR-15 style rifle versus...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sqjwxRRuYXI/UVmiJsydC1I/AAAAAAAABi8/IkOB6xCkEmU/s1600/brooklyn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sqjwxRRuYXI/UVmiJsydC1I/AAAAAAAABi8/IkOB6xCkEmU/s1600/brooklyn.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A full-size sedan. Which is the natural born killer?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How do bullets kill or damage the
target? By pushing (exerting blunt force) upon a small area which in
turn moves the mass being pushed; when the tensile strength of the
surrounding area is breached (it cannot stretch anymore) it tears and
the mass being pushed moves ahead of the path of the projectile
(bullet) creating a breach (bullet hole). A living target will die
if you either: A ) rupture an important organ (heart, lungs, brain
stem, major artery/vein) or B ) create significant bleeding from
enough bullet holes of sufficient diameter.<br />
<br />
How do cars kill
or cause damage? By exerting blunt force, crushing, expulsion,
mechanical failure, or by combustion/explosion. For the sake of
comparing apples to apples, we will simply focus on exerting blunt
force.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How much force does a bullet exert upon
a target on impact? Force is a calculation of Mass (grains of water)
x Velocity (feet per second) and is measure in Foot-Pounds. Nominal
performance of our test 62-gr bullet is an optimistic 3,000 ft/s at
point blank range. That means someone struck with this bullet will
receive 1,239 ft-lb of energy to their body, a little over half a ton
of energy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What about the car? It weighs in at
nearly 2 tons and can reach a top speed of well over 100 mph. For the
sake of this discussion we will say it is moving at the residential
speed limit of 25 mph, thus giving it a whopping 83,573 ft-lbs of
energy. That’s roughly 42 tons of energy colliding into the human
body.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Killing Power</b>: Point – Automobile</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What about the idea that the existence
of firearms leads to deaths? Here the two are actually equal. If
you sit a box of rifle ammunition, next to an unloaded 30-round
magazine and an unloaded AR-15, the rifle will not load the magazine,
insert it into itself, and then commence to killing people
indiscriminately. Oddly enough, if you sit a can of gasoline and a
key next to my Crown Victoria it will not fill its tank, put its key
in the ignition, turn itself on, put itself in gear, and start mowing
down pedestrians. However, if I take that rifle, load it, point it
at someone and squeeze the trigger that person has a good chance of
being hit and dying. Likewise, if I get behind the wheel of my car,
point my wheels at a person, and depress the accelerator I could plow
into that person and kill them. It seems both require human
interaction to do any damage.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Autonomy</b>: No points – Neither are
autonomous.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K3Cdd_o0M3Q/UVmlfyrcQmI/AAAAAAAABjE/kBkInEyTyMc/s1600/Wevegottodosomethingabouguns_zpse90bba3c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K3Cdd_o0M3Q/UVmlfyrcQmI/AAAAAAAABjE/kBkInEyTyMc/s1600/Wevegottodosomethingabouguns_zpse90bba3c.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What about killing capacity, surely the
AR-15 can kill more people than the car in the same amount of time?
Each time the operator squeezes the trigger of the AR-15, one
projectile is realeased from the barrel of the firearm. After 30
rounds are expended the operator must reload. This process can
continue until the rifle malfunctions, the operator is defeated, or
he/she expends all rounds he/she has. What about the car? When
the driver depresses the accelerator the car will move forward until
it fails, the driver is stopped, or the vehicle runs out of fuel.
With a 20 gallon fuel tank and a estimated fuel economy of 20 mpg the
maximum distance the vehicle could travel without releasing the
accelerator would be 400 miles or about 16 hours of vehicular
homicide, give or take a few hours.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Killing Capacity</b>: Point – Automobile</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But guns are NOT safe, they kill
people, you could even accidentally shoot yourself. In actuality,
not likely. The mean time between failures (MTBF) or the likelihood
a firearm will misfire or otherwise fail to operate as intended in
rated in the tens of thousands of rounds (each time the trigger
activates the cycling of the action and the firearm discharges a
bullet). In practical terms this works out to virtually zero chance
in your life you will have an accidental discharge that you did not
create. In fact a firearm could be passed down for generations
without harming something due to mechanical malfunction. The most
popular firearms in distribution today have few or no external safety
mechanisms to interact with and yet accidental firearm-related deaths
remain low. Cars on the other hand have had safety issues from their
inception. We have improved the design of vehicles to include things
like: safety glass, restraints, air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple
zones, and so forth. We have even enacted stricter automobile safety
legislation including: establishing licensing procedures, minimum
driving age, vehicle registration, speed limits, increased drinking
age, and tougher penalties for unsafe driving. We have even improved
the design and engineering of roadways to make them safer to
navigate. Yet, despite all these measures automobile accidents are
now the number one killer by injury in the United States.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Inherent Danger</b>: Point – Automobile</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But, but ...when someone gets hit with
one of those bullets ...why, they explode! Bullets are effective at what
they do, and the .223 Winchester it no exception, but they are no
death-ray – and they definitely do not explode. In fact, civilians
cannot get their hands on armor piercing or explosive ammunition.
Cars on the other hand can be quite devastating from the sheer force
of impact alone. Moreover, they are fueled by a highly combustible
liquid and can be rigged with explosives made from common household
materials to be mobile bombs, like the car used in the United States
most deadly school massacre, the Bath School Disaster, which killed
42 people. There really is not comparison.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Devastation</b>: Point – Automobile</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And here is the major rub. Car
ownership is not a natural right, nor is it a privilege expressly
protected by a Constitutional amendment. Yet, acquiring a vehicle
and operating it is vastly easier and less restricted than owning a
firearm, which is a natural right enshrined in the Constitution. No
background check, no waiting period, no feature restrictions, no
special tax stamps, no permit – you simply find someone with a
vehicle for sale and you purchase it. It is not even a criminal
offense to purchase a vehicle with the intent to transfer it to
someone else. The federal government even tried to make cars safer
by mandating they be built with arbitrary fail-safes to prevent them
from being unsafely operated, this however failed and went the way of
Prohibition.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Ease of Acquisition</b>: Point –
Automobile</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It seems when you look at the death
tolls of the two contestants and you add up the points, maybe the
automobile was designed to kill. Or maybe it does a far better job
of it than does a firearm in the hands of a conscientious citizen. Either way, it makes you wonder why the automobile is a status symbol, while the
AR-15 is a stigma?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W1REJM/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000W1REJM&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">I Can't Drive 55</a>" by Sammy Hagar from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000000OPF/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000000OPF&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">VOA</a></i> released 1984 on Geffen</div>
</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/10X3zJpMDMo?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129526454924480458.post-48034644981872809742013-03-27T04:16:00.000-04:002013-04-02T08:48:53.066-04:00Another Inconvenient TruthFile Under: Life Is Not Burger King<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-91F2UYvnkJE/UVKkHrpEdfI/AAAAAAAABig/XZoCajfrMRo/s1600/615+Wedding+rings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-91F2UYvnkJE/UVKkHrpEdfI/AAAAAAAABig/XZoCajfrMRo/s1600/615+Wedding+rings.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Good news: This has nothing to do with Al Gore, global warming, or the invention of the Internet. Nor does it involve a trip to Mordor if the above picture misled you. Bad news: I am going to tell you something you do not want to hear. Are you ready for it? Here it comes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>All marriages performed by or sanctioned through the state are illegal, and all the rights and responsibilities afforded by such marriages are baseless rendering them null and void.</b></blockquote>
<br />
Whoa ...that was a load off. Are you still there? You are? Good. Why would I spout such crazy talk, I mean that <i>is </i>crazy talk ...right? Unfortunately, no it is not. Marriage has three main problems in modern America. The first problem is that marriage is, has, and always will be a ritualized <b>religious</b> ceremony between two or more individuals of like beliefs formalizing the permanent bonding of one or more males to one or more females in recognition of a covenant between the marrying parties, their <b>church</b>, and their deity(ies). The second problem for marriage is that in America we have deemed it prudent in order to ensure the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of religion of ALL citizens that the church remain separate from the state. Finally, churches are private, faith-based religious organizations incorporated under a codified set of rules and doctrine determined by the members of that organization, wherein membership of the organization is determined by acceptance of and compliance with the codified set of rules and doctrine. What does that mean?<br />
<br />
The state (government) should never have performed, endorsed, or sanctioned a religious ceremony, nor should the state ever have afforded rights and responsibilities to individuals who have participated in said religious ceremony based simply upon the fact that they have completed the rituals of said ceremony. Moreover, marriage being by definition a religious ceremony is under the purview of the church; no state or federal body can redefine what an individual private organization determines to be a valid marriage according to its organizational bylaws. If the government were to co-opt the institution of marriage for political purposes it would make Unconstitutional the bylaws of all faith-based private organizations that define marriage contrarily and end the long-upheld legal ideology that private organizations (i.e. clubs, churches orders, leagues, associations, fraternities, etc.) had the right to be discriminatory in their membership practices. In plain English: the government cannot marry people, the government cannot confer upon married people rights and responsibilities, and the government cannot define or redefine what marriage is or is not.<br />
<br />
The rights and responsibilities that married individuals enjoy should never have been afforded to them by virtue of being married. Furthermore, legally binding services such as health and life insurance beneficiary status should never have been linked to marital status. In reality, any two or more consenting individuals (regardless of gender or orientation) who have achieved a suitable state of mental and emotional maturity, as well as social responsibility should be allowed to enter into either a domestic partnership (separate legal entities enjoying shared legal benefits and limited legal liability) or a civil union (a single legal entity created via permanent partnership with shared benefits and full legal liability) bestowing upon them the majority of the rights/responsibilities currently given to married couples. This is a real legal contract. A contract that is more relevant to the rights and responsibilities it delegates, and more permanently binding in a court of law than any promise between two parties and their deity.<br />
<br />
Proponents of same-sex marriage now would ask the government to give them immediately by law, what they will not strive to achieve by natural order: social validity. However, <i>de jure</i> acceptance is no more real for LGBT couples now than <i>de jure</i> tolerance was for minorities decades ago. Why? Because you cannot regulate the minds and hearts of people, nor can you legislate the human condition. The government is not here to force people upon society or society upon people; rather, its purpose is merely to preserve a place within society for law-abiding people. The rest is up to us. That is simply another inconvenient truth.<br />
<h3 class="r" style="color: #222222; font-size: medium; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">
<br /></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Viðrar Vel Til Loftárása" by Sigur Rós from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003YM32GA/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B003YM32GA&linkCode=as2&tag=fromtconra-20" target="_blank">Ágætis byrjun</a> released 1999 on Fat Cat/Smekkleysa</div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8kEl7fOKEA?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
R. Conrad Banehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13826744597249227869noreply@blogger.com0