What is 30 days of your life worth? Perhaps nothing!

Thomas Secrest

21 Dec 2013
Prague, CZ


What is the value of one month of your life? According to the PA state government -- $0.00!


I recently watched a video on The Young Turks network that really struck a cord.

In this little video, a case was described in which 2 people were held without trail for 1 month. They were charged with cocaine possession. They claimed it is soap; however, naturally, the arresting officer claimed he tested it and that it was cocaine. As it turned out, it was, in fact, soap, but it took the state of PA one month to actually test the substance. So 2 people sat in prison for 1 month because bail was set so high that they were unable to buy their way out.

Since soap and cocaine are rather different chemically, it leads me to ask 2 questions (1) did the cop really test the soap (remember it was soap after all) and (2) if he tested the soap and the test identified cocaine, why are they using such a worthless test? Either the cop or the test needs to be suspended.

The drug war has to stop. Being pulled out of your life for 1 month has consequences that can go on and on. The missed birth of a child, a wrecked marriage, being absent during the final days before the death of a loved one, missing final exams at college, being fired from work, missing an important interview ... the list goes continues and is limited only by your imagination. Think of every important day in your life and imagine what your life would have been like if on that particular day you were setting in jail accused of soap possession.

One day, someone is going to be pulled from their life and the consequences of having those 30 days stolen from them will be so horrific that it will lead them to the conclusion that someone must pay for the suffering it caused and the form that payment takes, may or may not be to your liking.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

The Police State vs. The Muslim Brotherhood

Thomas Secrest
15 Aug 2013
Prague, CZ

The Police State vs. The Muslim Brotherhood

It's not very often that we really have to acknowledge that you don't know who to support in a dispute. We may talk about this kind of thing happening on a theoretical basis, but it just doesn't happen very often.

Egyptians came a long way to get rid of Mubarak and to a certain degree they were lucky that the military had allowed a vote to go forward. The military had little to gain and a lot to lose by sitting quietly while the country experimented with democracy.

At least in the near-term I'm sure the military was planning to retain much of their power, while letting citizens enjoy a fair amount of increases personal freedom and liberty. This wouldn't have been a perfect solution and in time the tyranny at the heart of every police state would have had to be thrown off. Whether it could have been done in a more or less peaceful way is anyone's guess. We'll never know.

Unfortunately the Egyptians never got a chance to experience the freedoms and liberties they came so close to having. Instead, through the use of smoke, mirrors and the ballot box, a group of men calling themselves the Muslim Brotherhood took power.

Through ignorance and arrogance they started to create their Islamic state. A state which, if it had gone unchecked, would have been at least as bad and perhaps worse than the Mubarak government. An Islamic state cannot be a democracy and it is regrettable that the world watched and endorsed elections of people who by their nature and religion are anti-democratic. When it comes to what GOD wants, there are usually no options and voting is out of the question.

When Christopher Hitchens wrote "How Religion Poisons Everything" he had no idea how completely Egypt was going to prove his point. In recent history there may be no more glaring example of a situation in which religion grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

Those who thought that god spoke to them and had told them how all people should live, rushed in and dashed the precious ember of liberty with the bitter fluid that drips from documents such as the Koran; all while those too childish, too cowardly or too stupid to know better, stood by and cheered. The Islamic sheep of Egypt voted in huge numbers for those who would lead them, by the nose as slaves, into to the promise land.

The military will think twice before experimenting with liberty and democracy again and the Egyptian people, who had fought so hard for liberty and won so much, will once again live with boots on their necks.

Which boots are better? If I had to pick, and I'm glad I don't, I guess I would go with military boots.

Perhaps the meek will inherit the earth, however, it is fairly clear that the sheep shall not.

Doing The Wrong Thing

Prague, CZ
3 Aug. 2013
Thomas Secrest

Doing The Wrong Thing

I was listening to the BBC today. The subject was the trial of Bradley Manning. I listened to a similar program on the BBC a few days ago as well. In total, 6 guests, (who I call the Manning 6) with a variety of political leanings discussed the verdict in the trial. Some were supporters, some not, but they all agreed that the judge did the right thing is dismissing the treason charge. In fact that were almost giddy in their support of the judge, who won high praise from all.

It was both sad and disappointing.

Since I don't know these people, I am going to give them all the benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that they failed to realize they were being led around by the nose, all the while saying "thank you."

Consider this example:

Suppose you decide to risk jay-walking. You look both ways and when you think it is safe you dart across the street. To your surprise, you are spotted by a police officer who rushes towards you. Oh well, you think; I guess I'm going to get a ticket.  You are about to offer a friendly greeting when the officer shoots you with a Taser gun, ZAP!, which drops you to the pavement. The officer immediately begins kicking you and hitting you with a baton -- all while yelling at you to stop resisting and comply.

You are arrested and charged with jay-walking, attempted suicide and resisting arrest.

At your trial the judge finds you guilty of jay-walking and resisting arrest and fines you $2000. The judges dismisses the more serious crime of attempted suicide, which could have landed you in the nut house for an unspecified period (i.e. until you were no longer suicidal).

You thank the judge for her/his wisdom, pay your $2000 fine and take your broken nose, broken wrist and broken ribs and exit the court room as quickly as possible.

This is what happened to Manning. Now, the Manning 6, and all the rest of the sheep will have to wait and see if he is treated unfairly and given 130 years in prison, or if he is treat fairly and only given a life sentence.

One Nation Behind Bars

Prague, CZ
1 Aug. 2013
Thomas Secrest

One Nation Behind Bars

It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a piece on arrest rates in America. I wasn't completely surprised that America topped the list, although it was a little disturbing. I looked into it a little further and found that nearly 1 in 3 people are arrested before turning 23. These number make you stop and think -- what kind of society is America, if so many people are arrested each year?

I just didn't want to believe that America was some kind of hell-hole full of degenerate people who do nothing by seek out and break laws, as though it were some kind of national past-time. Part of me assumed that America's famously fair criminal justice system would prevail over, what seemed like mindless, indiscriminate arrests.

So I dug around and found a list of incarceration rates for countries of the world. I had visions of countries like Russia, China, South Africa, Columbia and Mexico being the top five, even it I didn't know the order. However, once again, I was a little surprised. Once again, America topped the list.

The countries in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th positions were a little strange and I can only assume they are there because of some statistical anomaly. In 5th position was Cuba, Russia was 8th, South Africa was 37th, Columbia was 52nd, Mexico was 67th, the Czech Republic was 94th and China was number 124!

Since almost everyone is aware that South Africa and Mexico have a few problems in this area, let me use them as a comparison. America has 2.5 times more prisoners than South Africa and 3.5 times more than Mexico.

This leads me to conclude that America is not a nation of degenerate law breakers, but instead a nation of degenerate law makers and a broken criminal justice system that profits from having people constantly entering and existing America's, extensive, prison system.

The American justice system can make ANYTHING illegal. Right or wrong is not an issue. Once something is illegal, the legislative system determines that penalty and punishment and the criminal justice system finds you guilty. Claiming the law is unconstitutional is a laugh. Even if you could pursue that pathway, you will still spend part of your life in prison as your case slowly works its way through the system.

I put to you these questions:

How much is your freedom worth?
How many years are you willing to spend in prison, for the right to be an American?

If you're not ready to start cutting off heads, then I suggest you tread likely, for you walk among snakes.

Why Are There So Many Sheep?

Prague, CZ
31 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

Why Are There So Many Sheep?

Today Edward Snowden provided more information about NSA activities. As before the corporate media spooned the story, prechewed and predigested, into the gaping, waiting mouths of the American citizens; all they had to do was swallow.

When Snowden released the first bit of information, those that speak for those with no names, quickly announced that PRISM was not used against American citizens. Then they announced that we shouldn't worry, the information was just a bunch of 1s and 0s. Then they said that there were safeguards and special courts that oversaw the whole process to keep it honest and protect citizens. Then they called it meaningless metadata.

Perhaps Snowden is a really clever. Maybe he figured that he could wait for the mouthpieces to lie about his previous information, before releasing more information that exposed their lies. I want to think he is that clever. I want to believe he give them enough rope to hang themselves.

The only problem with his plan is an American public that just doesn't care.

Once again Snowden has released new information that demonstrates that government told lie after lie after lie about the NSA and PRISM programs. However, no one cares. No one insists that those who stood before the nation, with the sole purpose of deceiving the American public, be held accountable for those lies. No reporters ask the likes of Obama, Carney, Clapper, Graham, Holder, Feinstein or Inglis why they lied to the public. No one bothered to ask, "if you will lie to our faces about this, what else will you lie about; what else have you lied about?"

America has become a nation of sheep.

I think it is worth reminding every American, that the destiny of sheep, in a land of wolves, is to be killed for dinner.

To Protect and Serve

Prague, CZ
30 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

To Protect and Serve

I was digging around on the internet today and ran across an article about how the police used a taser and then a bean bag gun to subdue a 95 year old man, who was resisting being taken to the hospital, apparently without his consent.

To defend himself, from what sounds like a medical kidnapping, he used his cane and a shoehorn. After the police were called, he further armed himself with a kitchen knife.

After the taser failed to produce the level of compliance the police wanted, they shot him with a bean bag gun. A bean bag sounds like a child's toy, however, it is fired from a 12 gauge shotgun at 300 ft/sec. The round has a surface area of 1 square inch and weighs about 1.5 oz.

These rounds kill on average 1 person per year and the dangers of their use are widely know. This section is taken from Wikipedia.

A bean bag round can severely injure or kill in a wide variety of ways. They have caused around a death a year since their introduction in the U.S. A round can hit the chest, break the ribs and send the broken ribs into the heart. A shot to the head can break the nose, crush the larynx or even break the neck or skull of the subject. This is why many officers are taught to aim for the extremities when using a bean bag round. A strike in the abdominal area can cause internal bleeding or strike the solar plexus which can disrupt breathing or heartbeat, but such a hit is generally safer than most other areas as well as presenting a larger target than an extremity.

 In this case, the old man was hit in the abdomen and died of internal bleeding. After surviving for 95 years, I can't help but wonder, if in all his imagination it ever crossed his mind that he would die after being gunned down by the police.

All of this made me curious; I wanted to find out how many other people the police kill each year. I also wanted to compare the US to Canada. In a 15 year period (1995 - 2010) there were 33 deaths caused by Canadian police. In that same 15 year period, there were 1,200 people killed by US police.

If you are saying that the populations are different you are, of course, correct. When we adjust for population differences, the Canadians killed one person per 1,000,000 of population, while the US police killed 4 people per 1,000,000 of population.

It means that US police kill 4 times as many people per year as the Canadian police. All that's left to ask now is -- why?

Whatever Became of Democracy in America

Whatever Became of Democracy in America
Prague, CZ
24 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

I was reading this morning that Weiner, admittedly an unfortunate name considering his tendencies, has once again revealed his inner nature through electronic messaging.

Like the revelations about the NSA, Weiner did not place his transgressions on the public alter and ask forgiveness, he tried to hide them. It took the expert reporting, choke, of the "Dirty" gossip site to bring this matter to light.

This proves that in politics, if no one knows, it's the same thing as if it never happened.

Undaunted by, what now appears to be a compulsive need to photograph and text his own junk, Weiner announced that his candidacy for mayor of New York city will continue, unabated.

Weiner told the Daily News of New York in May that at one point, he checked into a Houston psychiatric clinic to have his behavior evaluated, but "it wasn't an addiction thing." If it's not an addiction thing, maybe it's just a pervert thing.

However, I digress. The fact that Weiner tends to text his junk is less of a concern to me than the fact that he is the best person in New York city for the job of mayor; or the second or third or .... If this news hadn't come out, Weiner would likely have won, and may still win,  the democratic party primary.

I don't think you can really call it democracy if you are routinely given choices, over which you have no control, and are ask to simply endorse one with your vote. In a city the size and importance of New York, a person cannot rise to the level of a serious candidate for mayor without the backing of the rich, powerful and influential people who call New York home.

For the New York plutocracy it doesn't really matter who is mayor as long as they have a significant measure of control over the person. I suggest that Weiner may have risen to the top of the democratic primary race because, until today, the plutocracy knew something about Weiner that we didn't. That something gave them control, lots of control, which is why they gave him their support and why he may have been their preferred candidate.

Of course what we don't know is what form of control they have over the other candidates that New Yorkers will be asked to select from. It may be voting, but it's not democracy.

Arrested Development

Prague, CZ
23 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

Arrested Development

Here is a short quiz to start things off. Which countries do you think have the highest arrest rates? At the bottom, I have the answer.

Today a got a little curious and starting looking at arrest statistics. They're compiled by the FBI so I can't say that I have full faith and trust in them. However, if the numbers have been fudged, I would guess they are fudged in ways that make my case stronger.

In 2011, which is the most recent year with final statistics, there were 12,400,000 American arrested, or about 4% of the population.

If you think about it, those are some pretty impressive numbers. 12 million is nothing to sneeze it. If you get a calculator and do some math, the number just gets better and better. It works out to just under 34,000 people per day or 1400 people per hour or 24 people per minute.

Since I starting writing this 141 people have been arrested.

This impressive number must make America the arrest capital of the world. Why not, we have earned it by working hard and intentionally writing vaguely worded laws that can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Just in case people don't like being arrested, we even have laws that make doing just about anything, resisting arrest. What's really strange is that resisting arrest can be the only charge. I will leave you to toss that one around within the confines of your head.

148.  (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Because America has gone certifiably nuts with regard to laws for which one can be arrested, everyone reading this probably commits an arrestable offense every couple of weeks. How is it possible for every citizen to commit an arrestable offense every few weeks? Does it mean we have become a nation of criminals? The answer is NO! We are not a nation of criminals, we are a nation of laws that make us criminals.

You need look no further than YouTube to find case after case where people who were no threat to society (although in more than a few cases they were borderline stupid -- which is not illegal) were arrested because they didn't like being randomly stopped on the road or didn't like they way they were handled by airport security.

I've included a couple for your viewing pleasure, and I will say up front, these people pushed it a little, nonetheless, the police response created, then intensified the problem, which was solve with an arrest. The last one is the most disturbing, if for no other reason than it leaves you to wonder, why the woman (audio only) is heard supporting the action. She's like some demented cheerleader for random arrests.

• Video 1
• Video 2
• Video 3

 Now that arrest records are available on the internet, any arrest become very public knowledge. If you combine this with every job application asking about your arrest record (which is grounds for not getting the job) then a single arrest can change a persons life forever. They don't bother to find out if there were charges filed or a conviction, being arrested is all they need to know, all they need to find a reason to hire the other person.

Historically places with arbitrary and high arrest rates turned out to be places you wouldn't want to live. Prewar Germany, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Columbia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Congo, N. Korea, China, Panama, Mexico, is just a partial list of places where being arrested often didn't end well for the arrestee.


Here is the top ten list I promised. Turns out America is number 1.

1.United States 2. United Kingdom 3. Germany 4. France 5. Russia 6. Japan 7. South Africa 8. Canada 9. Italy 10. India. - See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/which-country-has-the-highest-arrest-rate#sthash.UuTDm3L2.dpuf

1. U.S.A.
2. U.K.
3. Germany
4. France
5. Russia
6. Japan
7. South Africa
8. Canada
9. Italy
10. India

It's time to say goodbye to Afghanistan

Prague, CZ
20 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

Before we ever invaded and occupied Afghanistan (in search or 40 or 50 fools) there were qualified people saying that the country would not convert to democracy and would never become a bastion for the enlightenment. 

Instead they said that as soon as the US and NATO forces left, Afghanistan would revert back to a primitive society and whatever social advancements had been gained by the life's of so many, would quickly vanish.

Collectively we ignored those thoughtful voices, but now their wisdom is painfully obvious.

Afghanistan is tribal, patriarchal and uneducated. It is the religious trifecta. In this case the religion is Islam, which along with the Mesoamerican regions, is among the worst religions our species has ever created.

Regrettably, like a cancer, Islam will continue to grow in Afghanistan and its misogynistic traditions will metastasize back towards the larger more secular towns. There is no surgical treatment (i.e. military) and there is no pharmacological treatment (e.g. social education). Afghanistan, the patient, is destine to die, and the death certificate will read "death by Islam."

The Fall

Prague, CZ
19 July 2013
Revision of The Fall
Thomas Secrest

I found god today.

She was crossing a street, not a busy street, not with cars anyway, and while she was crossing she stumbled on one of the old paving stones that cobbled the street and fell. Not a hard fall, but one that brought her to her hands and knees. The mobile phone she was carrying hit the paving stones and spontaneously disassembled itself into 6 or 7 bits. 

As I walked closer, I noticed that god didn't get up right away. She stayed down on hands and knees, looking startled and stunned and maybe a tiny bit frightened.

God was a gypsy, or as they are known here, a Roma. Romas are the central European equivalent of the untouchable cast in India. Roma are invisible people. There can be no other explanation for the stream of pedestrians that walked past her without a moment’s hesitation. They seemed to sense that god was there, because they managed not to step on her or the pieces of her phone, but for some reason they weren’t able see her, and except for a quick side step, continued undisturbed along their paths; one after another after another. As I said, it was a busy street, but not with cars, it was busy with pedestrians.

Finally, god started to pick up the bits of her phone. Her movements were timid, as if she were afraid of being stepped on or kicked. She crawled along, gathering the pieces, looking up hesitantly every few seconds, half expecting someone to trip or fall over her, or crush the fingers on her small hands as they reached out for the pieces of her phone. However, the endless stream of people slipped past her as if it had all been carefully choreographed. Not a head was turned, her plight went completely unnoticed. But of course, she was invisible. With the phone bits, now held in cupped hands, god rose and slowly walked the rest of the way across the street.

After crossing the street, she walked to the nearest doorway and sat down on the stoop. The doorway belonged to strip club and either side of stoop were large windows hung with heavy, faded gold drapes, which looked as if they had never been opened. The heavy fabric insured that no matter the time of day, it was always dark inside. Framed by the old faded drapes and backed by the majestic old red door she sat there like a painting. She placed the phone bits in a little pile between her feet, and leaving her arms stretched out between her knees, she began to cry. I couldn’t hear her crying, nor could I see the tears, still I knew she was crying, I could, if nothing else, feel it.

Why was god crying?

I had seen the fall, it wasn't overly hard, no twisted ankles, no broken bones, no blood; maybe a bruised knee and some skinned palms, but that should have been about all. Nothing every child hasn’t experienced on many occasions.

What had I missed?

As I got closer, I could see the dirty spots the grime from the city streets had left on the knees of her pink sweat pants and the fragments of what used to be a mobile phone between her bright pink sneakers, but I still couldn't understand why she was crying.

I finally stood directly in front of her, the tips of my enormous black boots almost touching the tips of her tiny pink sneakers. Seeing my feet she slowly looked up; eyes red, nose running, with tear streaked cheeks -- her eyes said it all; she wasn't crying because she had skinned palms or bruised knees, or because her mobile was in pieces, or because her pink sweat pants were ruined -- god was crying because god was just a little girl, an invisible little girl, and sometimes it hurts to be invisible.

It's good to be god.

Riding the Trayvon Martin Money Train

Prague, CZ
18 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

When we consider that the population of the U.S. is now over 300 million, the number of people who have a public voice is really rather small.

It's true that anyone can blog, just as I am doing, however, I can't really say I have public voice. At best it is a semi-public voice set on the lowest possible volume.

The Trayvon Martin case is rather complex and for that reason it is little understood. The commercial media is not going to provide an education, they are going to provide snippets of relatively worthless information. As with anything that is complex, snippets are of little value.

As a result of the poor quality coverage and as a result of not wanting to take time to fully understand the issue, people are now shaping deeply held but ill-informed opinions. If these opinions are held by those without a public voice, then perhaps the harm of ignorance is minimized. However, when these ill-informed opinions are held by those with a public voice the damage can be widespread.

Regardless of why, people often assume that those with a public voice are better informed than most and that their opinions reflect a greater understanding of the issue. Regrettably this is not the case. Those with a public voice are just people and their opinions are often just as ill-informed. They rely on media snippets just like most people; and like most people don't take the time to seek the truth.

It seems like dozens and dozens of TV, movie, and music celebrities have jumped on the Trayvon Martin money wagon. With opinions no better formed than the stuff in your nose, they have thrown their voice into the public arena knowing that they can ride this wagon to better sales or more viewers or more listeners or maybe just a higher celebrity status.

What they don't appreciate is that their voice may also incite some young person into making a life altering decision because they trust the celebrity to know right from wrong; and in the words of the celebrity they find motivation, perhaps not intended, to do things that can't be undone.

So to all those would-be intellectuals who think their celebrities status qualifies them to comment on things they don't and perhaps can't understand, I say "stuff a sock in it and shut-up!" Stick to things more in your league, like finger nail polish, hair styles, tanning lotions and fad diets. We have all the ill-informed public voices we can handle in the from of the executive and legislative branches of our local, state and national government; we really don't need anymore.

Zimmerman: It was never about Trayvon Martin, it was about prosecution egos.

Prague, CZ
14 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder because, for the careers of the prosecutors, successfully persecuting a charge of 2nd degree murder looks better on their resumes.

The event was simple and straight forward. It's history goes back as far as records. Two men entered into a life or death struggle on only one prevailed. The only real witness was a women listening on the other end of a cell phone call.

Everything that had shaped the life's if combatant came to bare in the moments before the conflict and were fair issues to be examined at the trial.

What was not a fair issue were the possible charges. The state, in the case Florida, has unlimited resources to prosecute a criminal case. Time, money and manpower offer no encumbrances and in most cases, even the judges are technically part of the state's justice apparatus. Any way you look at it, the cards favor the prosecution. The only real advantage for the defense is that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their version of the crime is the correct one.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.  
Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of another human being without premeditation or planning.

Once charged with second degree murder, the state was forced to prove that the killing was unlawful. It meant they had to have clear and persuasive evidence of the exact circumstances of a fight that no one saw.

Did Zimmerman break any laws? I think yes. Did he breaks laws that rise to the level of 2nd degree murder? I think not.

However, the temptation for the prosecution was too great. A young black man that looked like Obama's son, a half white/half Hispanic man, one armed with a gun - one not, a gated white community, racial profiling, vigilantism -- it was all too much red meat for those looking to advance their careers through a media show trail. They didn't give a damn about Martin, not until the media showed up. With the media's help, they became convinced that their unlimited resources could win the day even if the evidence couldn't.

If their egos hadn't gotten the best of them and the charges they had file had been fair and just, perhaps everyone would feel better about the outcome. Perhaps their could have been a trail regarding the issues that could be tested and evaluated and proven or disproven.

In this trail, I think the jury did the right thing. I think they were faced with a conclusion that they all  agreed with. They simply didn't have enough information, about what happened in that life or death struggle, to say if it was self-defense or unlawful killing. They weren't presented with a case in which they could come to a meaningful conclusion. In this case, I think NOT guilty means "we just don't know."

Those who assert that they know what REALLY happened are lying. The jury did only the fair and justice thing, considering the case they were given.

One final thought -- in this case the prosecutors more than likely knew they didn't have the evidence regarding self-defense or unlawful killing. However, as I have suggested, that probably wasn't their yardstick. Instead they evaluated the case as winnable, despite the lack of convincing evidence. It means that Florida state justice system was willing to send Zimmerman to prison, for a very long time, so that a few prosecutors could advance their careers. I find this horribly wrong.

Do Right to Life oraganizations really care about aborptions? I think not.

Prague, CZ
12 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

I guess there are few issues more divisive than abortion. While I do have strong feelings on the issue, it is not the subject of this essay.

Instead I am interested in those of low character who would use such a delicate issue to advance an agenda that they would claim to be moral and ethical, but which in reality is neither.

I've never met a pro-choice person who didn't hope that someday, abortions would be a grim memory of the past. However, and this is my opinion, we live in a country where religious groups with questionable motivations have created an environment where abortions are a necessary evil.

I wrote yesterday on the issue of human rights and used The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a pretty good example. The religious groups mentioned above, have no use for this declaration because it was prepared by man and not handed down from their god. That The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is much more thoughtful and comprehensive than anything found in the bible, is evidence, that either their god or the bible is seriously flawed.

However, flawed or not, they have no intention of endorsing all the rights found in the declaration, and to that end they want to influence legislation in such a way as to impose their views on the rest of society.

What I find so disgusting is that they will use any and every issue to advance the theocratic states of America.

As an example of this attempted deceit let me offer the Cleveland Right to Life manifesto.

WE believe that all human beings are made in the image of the Creator and must be respected and protected from the moment of conception until natural death.

We know to be true that human rights begin when human life begins, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.

So as to foster a culture of life we promote and defend the right to life of all innocent human beings and reject such practices as abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and same-sex marriage that are contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”.

In the first sentence they use the word 'believe' which usually means you feel strongly about something but you don't have firm evidence for it. So in effect they think 'the' creator looks human. In the second sentence they use the word 'know' which is very different than believe. They know that human rights begin when human life begins. I would suggest that, just as they have no evidence for what the creator looks like, they also have no evidence regarding the beginning of human rights. 

Of greater importance is that they offer no firm definition of what constitutes human rights (e.g. something like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and they offer no firm definition regarding what constitutes the beginning of human life. It is these two definitions that divide fair and just minded people on this issue. For them to claim supernatural sources of information from the beginning means that they really have no intention in having an open and honest debate or in trying to advance society in ways that seek to minimize the need for abortions. 

 

Plus, no matter how you read the Declaration of Independence, there is nothing to suggest that abortion ever crossed the minds of the authors as they were writing those words; so why would the Cleveland Right to Life organization lie in this way?

Their real motivation becomes clear in the third sentence. Can you spot the odd man out. Can you spot the one that suggests that these people have a single objective, which is to advance their religious views to the level of law and subjugate all those who disagree with their particular interpretation of what 'the' creator had to say.

What does same-sex marriage have to do with the right to life? The answer is a thunderous Nothing! It is simply a part of their reprehensible, vile and degrading world view.

In the very important and much need reasonable and rational discussion about abortion, these people have no place and neither do the politicians who willingly disgrace and debase themselves through open association.

America is NOT a christian theocracy. It never was and it never will be.

Democracy only gets you half way there

Prague, CZ
11 July 2013
Thomas Secrest

There other day I was driving home from work and on the radio I was listening to the BBC. The subject was the current crisis in Egypt. Part of the program was given to Morsi supporters and the other part was given to the "anti-Morsi" group.

I literally lost tract of how many times the Morsi supporters used the words democracy, or democratic or democratically in their defense of Morsi and his (former) government.

Their arguments were simple -- Morsi was democratically elected and that's that's. For the military to remove him from office, regardless of reason, was an undemocratic military coup.

In my opinion, the Islamic world, and the judeo-christian world for that matter, don't understand the word democracy. Their tendency is to go to the dictionary and read the definition and then proclaim that since they voted, it must be a democracy.

The spirit of TRUE democracy has two elements. The first is "we the people" and the second, which is equally important is "hold these truths to be self evident." In modern times these "truths" are clearly stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without that last part, democracy is little more than voting.

Let me offer a simple example. While it is much less true today, in the past America was considered to be the shining light on the hill when it came to democracy. America was considered to be the country that wrote the book on putting together human rights and voting.

However, for almost 100 years, America experimented with the dictionary version of democracy. Whites, the majority, voted again and again, for rules, laws and regulations that applied favorably to whites Americans and negatively to black Americans.  The majority voted that blacks should ride at the back of buses, should drink from only designated water fountains and should not be allowed equal access to education, and of course many more. It is an extremely sad part of American history. However, it can't be denied, the majority voted repeatedly to maintain economic and social slavery in America and quite honestly, if they could have voted to re-institute slavery, some states would have likely done so.

There can never be a TRUE Islamic democracy, just like there can never be a TRUE Christian or Jewish democracy. The reason is quite simple: religions don't respect human rights. They wish to establish their own list of human rights and the lists they formulate are, at best, seriously incomplete and, at worst, horrific, vile, misogynistic, and inhuman.

Morsi was 'thrown off'' because he was NOT a democratic president, he was an Islamist president, a democratically elected Islamist president. The Egyptian people had the right and the obligation to force Morsi from power.

These words perhaps say it better than any ever written: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. 

This is the police! Comply and we will not kill you!

Prague, CZ
8 July 2013
By Thomas Secrest

Look at the picture to the left very carefully. You will see that the officer, who is substantially larger and stronger than the young woman he is killing, is pressing the index and middle finger of his right hand into the neck of the woman, while at the same time he is pressing the first knuckles of his index and middle fingers of his left hand into the left side of her neck.

Now look carefully at his face. It is a horrible image. He doesn't look threatened, he doesn't look worried, he looks like a child who after demanding something, didn't get and is about to explode with rage. The grimace on his face is not one of pain, but of a thug trying hard to hurt someone. It took me a while to put my finger on it, but there is also something else that can be read in his face -- perverted gratification. He doesn't feel bad about what he's doing, he's enjoying it.

Now look at the picture to the right. In case you were wondering what he was pressing on, he is pressing on the left and right common carotid arteries. These vessels supply, most, and I really

mean most, of the blood to the brain. If you occlude these vessels long enough, and it doesn't take long, you can induce a stroke, producing dangerous slowing of the heart or with longer compression, you can kill the brain.

He is also compressing her airway so she can't breathe. So to be clear, he is both choking and strangling this young woman.

Now look back at the picture above. Look at that faint line on her neck that starts between the fingers on his right hand and runs across to the same point on his left hand. That line it her hyoid bone. It is a delicate U-shaped bone that sits on the top of the larynx. He is pressing hard on the top of the U. If he breaks that bone (the bottom of the U), then all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't keep her alive.

The police officer in the picture is doing exactly what you would do if you were trying to kill a woman from behind, who couldn't use her arms to defend herself.

Is she a treat to him? Dose she know kung fu? Was she beating him about the face and head? No to all these, in fact she can't use her arms at all (which is something you can see in this picture). She is no threat other than she refused to do what he wanted and in his rage (look at the face again) he is trying to kill her.

That he stops short of killing her, in no way exonerates him. It is absolutely no different that if a man is trying to kill his wife or girlfriend, but doesn't. Saying, "but I didn't kill her" is not really a great defense.

For your reading enjoyment this link will take you to a police publication that defends the use of this technique. To be quite honest I was more than a little disturbed by what I read.

The main defense was very interesting. Right or wrong, the police are going to force you to do what they want, even if what they want violates your rights as a citizen. Therefore, since you are going to comply (one way or another), using this technique (carotid artery pressure) means they are less likely to have to Taser you, club you, punch you, kick you or shoot you as part of forcing you to do what they want.

After reading the police defense of the technique, I guess the girl in the picture above, should consider herself LUCKY! So, when it happens to you, just remember how lucky you are.

Dark times are coming.

Do we really want to live like this?

Prague, CZ
07 July 2013
By Thomas Secrest

Some days I wake up feeling a little better than others. Today was one of those days. Unfortunately, it didn't last long. I sat down at my window to the world and opened Facebook and the first thing that popped up was a video (see below) showing a police check point that was set up somewhere, everywhere, in America on the evening of the 4th of July.

These check points were ushered in a long time ago under the banner of Mother's Against Drunk Driving. The organization itself was well intentioned, if perhaps somewhat misguided. Nobody wants a single death to be caused by a drunk driver.

However, for those who have always preferred a more autocratic, fascist style America, it was the perfect opening for random stops and checks. Anyone objecting would be tarred and feathered as someone who favored drunk driving and wanted to see innocent people killed in traffic accidents. In the rank and file in favor of random stops were the loyal sheep of society who proclaimed that if you're not drunk then you have nothing to worry about and therefore they don't mind being randomly stopped. These are, of course, the same ones who proclaim that if you're not saying or writing anything you shouldn't, then you have nothing to fear if someone reads and listens to everything you say and write.

With protection of Mother's Against Drunk Driving, states around the union began setting up random check points. At first they were fought by the various civil liberties organizations, and there were those rare victories, but the feel of the jackboot on the neck of citizens was intoxicating to the police and their handlers and they had no intention of giving up there ability to randomly stop citizens, instill fear and demand submission under penalty of arrest and prison.

States simply adjusted the wording of the laws that gave the police far reaching authority over citizens. Additionally, those who favored an autocratic, fascist style America began to pack the courts. Many judges are appointed and those appoints are expected to be philosophically aligned with those who appointed them.

Victories in cases brought against illegal detention and searches at random stops became fewer and fewer as legislators wrote and rewrote the laws to give the police more and more power over citizens.

Now, after more than two decades, either through appointment or through the bad judgement of the American sheep, the courts have been stacked against civil liberties and in favor of the new American police state.

Dark times are coming.

DUI Random Check, 4th July 2013

Why Does the U.S. Support Morsi?

Prague, CZ
06.07.2013
By Thomas Secrest

Strange as it may seem, one day after the military took control of Egypt, Obama gave a speech that was very clearly pro-Morsi and anti-revolution. I encourage you to listen to the entire speech and decided for yourself. The statement is short, only about 3 minutes long. Assuming you agree with me, the question becomes, why?

Remember that for 30 years Egypt was an important alley of the U.S. The regional has never been stable, so having Egypt as an alley was critical for American foreign policy. It shared a border with Israel and was a counterbalance to the influence of Iran and Syria.

U.S. backing was without regard to the fact that Egypt was a military dictatorship and there was nothing even remotely democratic about it. Mubarak promised to prevent Iranian-style Islamic radicalization and the money and weapons began to flow.

When the people of Egypt rose-up and demanded a democratically elected government and a new president, the U.S. stood by silently. Day after day Mubark tried to crush the revolution with increasingly harsh measures and day after day Obama said nothing that could be construed as supporting the democratic wishes of the people. Considering that America is the bar of democracy by which all others are measured, it was a bit surprising that the U.S. said nothing (or was it?).

Of course, Mubarak fell after 18 days of ever growing unrest and protests. The military stepped in and Egypt went from an military pseudo-democratic dictatorship to an official dictatorship. The military held on to power for over a year until the Egyptian people once again entered the streets in protest.

Eventually elections were held and Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood came to power. For the Egyptians it was a painful lesson in democracy. They had failed to realize that democracy heavily favors the rich and powerful.

However, the Egyptians had learn another lesson in democracy, if you put enough people in the streets, you can force those who would subvert democracy out of power.

Perhaps now you are starting to see why Obama and many other democratically elected world leaders are chafing at what's happening in Egypt.

Egypt has shown the world that if you can put enough people in the streets, the will of the people can trump money and power and pseudo-democratically elected presidents. Obama would say that the people of Egypt should work for change through voter turnout not protest turnout. Of course he would say that, since he is a product of a democracy of, and for, the powerful elite.

For all those who have purchased, bartered, stolen or inherited their place at the table, the idea of writers, activists, intellectuals, moderates and progressives, plus the millions of people they represent, walking into the streets and demanding that they too be seated at the table, must be horrifying.

The 4th Amendment and the Patriot Act

Prague, CZ
05.07.2013
By Thomas Secrest

I'm going to present you with two passages of text. Then I hope you have the time to consider for yourself if the two can be reconciled with what is happening in America today. At the same time you have to also consider the implications if they cannot be reconciled.

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act: The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

To me the spirit and the wording of these two texts are clear and based on that wording I suggest that the domestic digital spying program violates both the spirit and the letter of the law. If that is true, it means that those who brought the domestic spy program into reality, have not only violated the law of congress but the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you come to the same conclusions as I, then you are faced with the implications of what it means when the highest elected and non-elected officials of the land have knowingly and willingly subverted the Constitution.

Thomas Secrest