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

Child Protective Services Abducts Child

Let me summarize this case: Back in 2010, a woman gave birth in a Pittsburgh hospital. Whether she gave consent for her blood to be tested for drugs, I don't know. What it clear after the lawsuit is that she was NOT a opiate drug user, which means she could NOT fail a test for opiates. Regardless of what could and could not happen, Child Protective Services showed up at the door of her home, 3 days after she gave birth and took her child hostage. Five days later the child was returned.

The media that reported this, failed as usual, to ask the serious questions about how it happened.

1. Are all women getting non-consensual drug tests when they go to give birth? Everyone realizes that blood tests are part of child birth, but drug tests are not.
2. How is it possible for a woman who is innocent of opiate drug use be compelled to hand over her newborn child, based on accusations of opiate use? The implication here is that being innocent is NOT a defense.
3. Where was this women's real due process? 
4. What would have happened if this woman if she had defended her child by resisting the abduction? Someday this is going to happen to a woman who doesn't understand what's happening, someone who is going to become hysterical and when that happens, somebody is going to get hurt or killed.

So what's the big deal?

This woman lost something that is hard to measure and something that cannot be returned. The biological events that take place between a mother and child during the first days after birth are extremely important. Neuro-behavioral patterns that are not well understood are rooted in these first days and the consequences of this sort of disruption are impossible to predict.

Yes, CPS had to pay the woman over $100,000; however, in my mind they got of cheap. The penalty should have been extreme, at least as extreme as abducting a newborn child from its mother.

http://news.yahoo.com/pa-mom-settles-suit-over-poppy-seed-drug-165925243.html

Thomas Secrest

The U.S. says "jump" and the world says "how high."

The Edward Snowden affair continues to unfold with the U.S. government taking an alarmingly dismissive attitude toward the whole situation. The U.S. is quietly putting pressure on virtually every country in the world to limit the chances that Snowden will be able to find a place to get on with his life. Obama quips that he isn't going to scramble fighters to bring down a plane carrying a 29 year old hacker to exile.

However, as it turns out he doesn't have to scramble fighters, in this particular case he simply has to tell certain countries (Spain and France) to close their airspace to any planes the U.S. suspects of transporting Snowden.

Today (2-3 July 2013) Spain, France and Austria proved themselves to be America's lapdogs by forcing the plane of Bolivia's president to land in Austria (where it was searched).

Under pressure of an upcoming trade agreement renewal with America, Ecuador, has now stepped back from its earlier position that Snowden was welcome there. Even Russia and iron man Putin, are trying to distance themselves from Snowden, while still saving a touch of dignity.

Right or wrong, no one dares say no to America.

'via Blog this'

Thomas Secrest