The Poison Pill - how to stifle dissent without the use of logic and a complete absence of facts

So you are in a debate with someone. Maybe they are a little smarter than you. Maybe they are just better prepared. You are losing the debate. It's time to give them the poison pill. The contents of the pill vary, depending on the debate topic and the political/social norm for the time period.

It is the 1950's and someone is arguing against censorship, stronger government control, and for unions and worker rights. They have good arguments, what do you do? Reply: "you're a communist". You can even put it to them in the form of a question, "are you a communist". You have introduced a new paradigm; instead of debating the facts back and forth, now you have forced your opponent into trying to prove he is not a communist. Game over, you've short circuited all his arguments, forced him on the defensive and made him look like a social pariah.

Of course such an accusation would be laughed at now, but the concept of the poison pill is still as effective as ever. Lets update the debate topic. The subject is now affirmative action. The opposition is hitting you hard about how certain aspects of it are unfair and have not worked. You could argue back with counter points but why bother? It's time for the poison pill and it's a beaut. "You're a racist" That's it. One word. By hanging the moniker "racist" on your opponent you have stuffed him/her into a box that they will have to spend the rest of the debate struggling to escape from.

The poison pill is also an excellent tactic for governments/corporations wishing to hide unscrupulous and/or immoral activities. All a corporation or government has to do to dismiss accusations of underhanded activity is to label the accusation as a "conspiracy theory". Anyone engaging in "conspiracy theory" is usually looked upon as a nutter so the poison pill in this case can put a damper on public interest in the story, or at least cast doubt on the accusations legitimacy.

Are you a violent asshole who likes to punch people? Now the poison pill works for you too! Just label them a "nazi" and you go from thug to hero.

I don't have a good answer to the poison pill tactic, I wish I did. I think more public skepticism is in order. Just because someone in a political party or group that you agree with accuses someone else of being a [insert pejorative here] does NOT make it true, and if they are using it to either shut down debate or assault someone then you REALLY need to take the accusation with a grain of salt.

Obama care - bend over and take it

So, the supreme court has given the go ahead to Obamacare, claiming it comes under the governments right to tax. I find this interpretation very strange. When people think of a "tax" it is usually the government directly taking money from you in some form or other for services it provides. This is NOT the case with Obamacare.

Lets get something straight right away, this is NOT A PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN!!! In fact, there is no public option at all, that provision was struck out of the bill, thanks to the insurance industry.

How this works is the government forces people to buy health care from private corporations, refusal to do so gets you fined. Of COURSE welfare people get a pass, as guess what? They ALREADY get free health care, paid for by working people. Most middle class people will be ok, as they already have health insurance. Illegals, ahahahahahaha, good luck finding out where they live to send them the fine!
Correction - I have since found out illegals are exempt!!!
The people who are REALLY going to get a screw job off of this are the low income working class U.S. citizen. It's almost impossible for limo libs like Obama to picture this, even middle class libs don't or won't see them but yes Virginia, there IS a subclass of people who WORK for a living, get shit pay, and live hand to mouth. They didn't wake up and say, "hey, health care, fuck that, I don't want it!" The FACT is they can't afford it, their peanut paychecks barley cover rent, auto insurance, food, utility bills, etc. So now you tell these people they are going to have to shit out $50-$100 a week extra for health care? It won't work, all that will happen is the unemployed numbers will go up as these people say fuck it and quit. Why work at all if the government is forcing so much money from you you can't pay all your bills?

I just love the whole "tax" angle the moronic Supreme court let this slide under. As we have the best congress money can buy it will only be a short time before the 1%'er corporations and the politicians get together to decide what the next "service" they will mandate the public buys.

No doubt they will mandate you buy the dildo they are going to assrape you with.

Who should get welfare?

There is an eternal argument about welfare. The most common is why pay people to not work; that is applied to poor people. Advocates of this type of welfare argue, "what about corporate welfare"?

It used to be most people weren't aware of corporate welfare, but now they are. Corporate welfare had a LOT to do with the occupy wall st movement. They didn't express that well, but if you dug down corporate welfare was at the heart of the resentment felt by many of them.

There are many types of Corporate welfare, I don't even begin to know them all. I'll provide a partial list here, anyone reading feel free to comment if you think I left anything out.

• Non Profit Status - This isn't even considered corporate welfare but if you think about it, it is.
  
  
  • Colleges
    
    You have Universities that have jacked up tuition way beyond the inflation rate year after year after year yet pay no taxes on huge volumes of land they are squatting on.
    
    
  • Churches
    
    
  • Charities
    
    If you can pay six and seven digit salaries to your ceo you can pay your damn taxes too.
    
    
  • This kind of speaks for itself. The catholic church isn't generating a profit? Really?
    
    
• Allowing corporate use of public lands
  
  Typically government allows corporations to use public lands for a cost far less than they would have to pay a public sector land owner. Some examples are:
  
  
  • Logging
    
    
  • Grazing
    
    
  • Mining
    
    
  • Oil Edit: I've somewhat revised my opinion on oil drilling on public lands, as energy independance is important. Too high energy cost gives rise to runaway inflation, NOT a good thing. However, the oil companies should ABSOLUTELY be paying market value for the use of public lands, NO DISCOUNTS!
  
  
  There is a LOT of debate on this issue, but what should NOT be up for debate is that if corporations are going to lease PUBLIC land the very LEAST that should be required is they pay market rate for it. Currently they are damaging public resources while profiteering at the taxpayers expense.
  
  
• Bailouts of banks and insurance companies
  
  Taxpayer funded government bailouts of "too big to fail" corporations has angered many people, big corporations get a helping hand up while peoples houses get repossessed in the never ending stagnant, shitty economy.
  
  
• Corporate tax breaks
  
  One law for you, another for them.

I'm with conservatives when they say welfare for poor people needs to be tightly regulated. It should NOT be doling out government money for life, unless someone is sick or elderly, and recipients should not be allowed to use that money to buy luxury items, booze, or drugs. In Massachusetts welfare people get an "EBT" card, which they can cash out at any ATM. This allows them to buy crack, hookers, or anything else they want off the taxpayers dime.

So when it comes to who should get welfare, I don't think corporations should get ANY. They are a BUSINESS and in a REAL capitalist system need to stand or fall on their own.

Can you outrun the wind?

I'm not a survivalist myself, I can't be, as I live in the city. If a real SHTF (shit hit the fan) event occurred I'd be screwed and die, with the rest of the city dwellers.

 One of the staples of survivalism is the bug out bag. Essentially three days supplies, enough to get you from where you are to where you want to be. I never thought I'd have the need for one until I read this article, especially the part:

we could see the explosion and diffusion into the North Pacific's winds and ocean currents of 10 times the radioactive material emitted by the Chernobyl disaster - rendering much of Asia, North America and many other corners of the globe uninhabitable for centuries.

So the issue there would be, could I out pedal the wind? You couldn't drive, the roads would be jammed. How far could I get before someone tried to jack the bike? How do you prevent that?

Would authorities let you leave? Government is fucked up, they may think they are "keeping order" by bottling everyone up where they are, even though it's a death sentence.

I assume since they said "North America" that would be U.S. and Canada. How far south would you have to go?

Would the government even TELL you the shit hit the fan, or would they wait until it was too late to "avoid panic"?

My synapses is that even if I was in the shape I was in when I had no car and biked everywhere(waist size was 34, took an athletic cut suit) the odds would be near or at 0. This is not just me being cynical, as stated above I DON'T think government would give people enough notice. This would allow the politicians and their rich friends to clear out without the roads being jammed up.

How fast do the winds travel? That is a HUGE factor and being no meteorologist I don't have a clue as to how much time you have to screw. The winds would probably hit California first as that is closer to Japan, but Mass is a shitty place to be, we are WAY up north, even in NORMAL traffic it takes days of 60mph driving to get to Florida. Mexico would be even worse and that is probably where you need to screw to, so yeah, thinking about it a bicycle is out, no way you could make it in time to avoid the poison rad winds. A wind pattern would be interesting, to find out just how far you'd have to go to avoid rad poisoning.

Well that was cheerful, I now know my intro was right, if that happened there is really no escape. I'd be buying a daisy farm, 6 x 3 ft plot.

Stand Your Ground Laws

Someone asked about stand your ground laws. I couldn't give an immediate answer, it's one of those things I had to think on for a while. I think a stand your ground law could work, but(like any law) it needs to be properly interpreted by prosecutors and judges.

The example on the news, Trayvon Martin is NOT under any sane interpretation a case of self defense. The person who killed him, George Zimmerman's only claim was that Martin "looked suspicious" (this is sometimes referred to as walking while black-NYC's stop and frisk works off of this principal). There wasn't even an initial confrontation, from all accounts Zimmerman chased after Martin, who of course ran from someone screaming at him for no reason. Even if they started fighting after that the aggressor clearly was Zimmerman, so under the stand your ground law it would have been Martin who had the right to shoot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

EDIT
Conflicting reports have since come in, it is possible there was an initial confrontation and that Trayvon was not run down. Even so, this is STILL a poor case to present an argument against stand your ground, as SYG didn't apply here!
Zimmerman shot Martin when Martin was on top of him. He was pinned down so at that time he had no option of retreat.

Chasing someone down for no reason and shooting them is pretty clearly murder; failure to prosecute in a case like has more to do with a racist/corrupt/inept police force than anything else.

This case is what a stand your ground law is SUPPOSED to prevent, prosecution of someone who is confronting an actual criminal. The public outcry did get the case dropped, but they had wanted to prosecute a guy who didn't even shoot or kill anyone, he just punched out a junkie who was trying to rip him off, and that was AFTER the guy took a swing at him.

So to sum it up stand your ground is like most laws, an honest judiciary can make it work, but it will fail under a corrupt one. Then again if the judiciary and the cops are corrupt you are in pretty deep shit overall; congrats you now live in a banana republic.

Who is Media?

Who is Media? If you asked that question, most people would probably name some large news organization, say, the NY Times, CNN, Fox, or maybe their local news channel. They may get more specific and name some news anchor or reporter who works for a major news outlet.

These corporations and people working for them are allowed to gather news under the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. No one disputes this.

But with the advancement of technology, most notably the portable digital camcorder, now even a part of many cell phones, a new kind of Media has sprung up. The independent Media. So now anyone with a blog and or youtube account can post their video to the internet, making them available to millions, this kind of dissemination only big corporate media had previously.

The occupy movement is a good example, it was not initially covered by mainstream media, but millions of people became aware of it through video footage taken by people with small video cams.

So the question gets asked: are these people really Media, a part of the press, are they protected under the first amendment of the constitution, just like a NY Times reporter is?
You will get different answers depending on who you ask. Police officers generally will say no, they arrested numerous people recording the occupy movement claiming they were "not media".

Some in the mainstream press feel this way. If you read the article here there is a univision videographer with a camera the size of a bazooka on his shoulder telling a Ron Paul supporter that he is not allowed to film him. The attitude seems to be that working for a corporation gives someone exclusive 1st amendment rights, rights which are NOT extended to the hoi polloi riff raff with their small digicams.

Is this true? I don't think so. Lets start by looking at the text of the first amendment it's self.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You will note that NOWHERE in that statement does it say that you need to work for a company to be considered press.

This is affirmed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to "'every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'" von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).

Thats the good news here is the bad.

Case No. CV-11-57-HZ
OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP, LLC, and
KEVIN D. PADRICK vs CRYSTAL COX

Here Judge Hernandez states that defendant blogger Cox is "not media"

From:Boston.com

"Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" is considered "media" for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim. Without any controlling or persuasive authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is "media," triggering the negligence standard."

"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

That means, to be a journalist, you've got to:

• Have studied journalism in school (college, I assume, which can get expensive).
  
  
• Work for a media outlet other than an independent blog (that rules out thousands of bloggers doing good journalism).
  
  
• Maintain established journalism standards (whose standards? Standards in journalism tend to be, um, fluid).
  
  
• Get both sides of the story (Hey, FoxNews and MSNBC and the Boston Herald and the Boston Phoenix and a whole bunch of other news organizations: From now on, you are no longer journalists).

So under THIS decision anyone who didn't take journalism classes and is not working for a company isn't media and is NOT covered by the 1st amendment. This decision if chosen over von Bulow v. von Bulow denies 1st amendment press protection to just about the entire independent media community.

So just who the fuck IS media? Well, according to 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and any SANE, RATIONAL person with the ability to read the actual text of the first amendment it's anyone who disseminates information to the public.

According to Judge Hernandez and all too many blowhards in government and corporate media-land the first amendment of the constitution only applies to people who work for a news media company. Under THIS strict and narrow definition when government tells citizens to put their cameras away, they have to obey.

NDAA, the politicians Christmas present to you - a police state

There has been a lot already out there on the abortion of a bill, this years National Defense Authorization Act. Jennifer Abel blogs about it here.

With the stoke of a pen, the politicians have taken a diarrhea shit all over the constitution. The major rot in this bill is contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism, Section 1021 specifically the clause:

(a) "In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

Why is this so odious? To understand, the next section explains just who a "covered person" is.

1. A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
   
   
2. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

If you read this there is NO EXEMPTION for U.S. citizens, INCLUDING those on U.S. soil. The really ugly part of this bill is contained in the next section.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

1. Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
   
   
2. Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
   
   
3. Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
   
   
4. Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Note, while section 1022 exempts U.S. citizens from military trials, and clause 4 above is for non citizens, the most odious, clause 1 CAN BE APPLIED TO U.S. CITIZENS! Read it again: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities".

So what this all boils down to is this gives the power to the government to indefinitely detain with no trial U.S. citizens accused of being a part of, or even "substantially supporting", "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces". A modification to exempt U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was rejected by congress.

The forefathers in writing the constitution were VERY clear that citizens accused of crimes be granted a trial.
Here is the 5th amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the relevant section here is that citizens not in the armed forces are specifically not to be held by the government without a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

This alone should be enough to make this bill unconstitutional, but there is more.
Here is the 6th amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I'm not a lawyer, but the text here is crystal clear, the government is required to give the accused a "speedy and public" trial, NOT hold them indefinitely.

Here is the 8th amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

While "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was intended for sentencing at trials end, I would state that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens with no trial could be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment".

As I read about this monstrosity that the politicians shit forth I asked myself "who asked for this"? A lot of unpalatable anti freedom bills can be traced back to corporate interests. SOPA is a great example of this, it has a long list of corporate sponsorship. I dislike SOPA intensely, but I understand it's origins; corporations, probably headed by RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA groups poured money into congress to get a bill giving them and the government control over the internet when it comes to copyright issues.

But who is supporting an indefinite detention for U.S. citizens provision of the NDAA? You might think that government agencies may have been pushing for this, but that seems not to be the case, as the detention provision is opposed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco.

So who supports this? So far all I've been able to dig up are a small group of companies involved in defense contracts. Note the article does NOT say if any of these companies pushed for or support section 1021 of the NDAA, it is still NOT CLEAR to me where this came from. I'm going to field a guess on this, and I stand by it. I'm guessing that this did NOT emanate from corporations, but rather from a naked lust for power coming from the politicians. The constitution was specifically written to limit the power of government and many politicians don't like this at all. If section 1021 of this bill goes unchallenged, or worse, is upheld by the supreme court, the politicians will have gutted the constitution and replaced it with a police state.

Here is a list of the scum in the Senate who voted for this.
Here are the House members who voted for this.