The object of justice is to endeavor towards the abscence of criminal activity. Six felonies reduced to the least one and prolonged over three decades. Not a complete failure thanks to this judge's reasonable determination. However the main concern of justice is how many children has he hurt over the last 32 years? Based on the unfolding of events I'm not convinced that the message sent and lessons learned from the experience don't encourage his behavior.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Rape
I am responding to This guy
The object of justice is to endeavor towards the abscence of criminal activity. Six felonies reduced to the least one and prolonged over three decades. Not a complete failure thanks to this judge's reasonable determination. However the main concern of justice is how many children has he hurt over the last 32 years? Based on the unfolding of events I'm not convinced that the message sent and lessons learned from the experience don't encourage his behavior.
The object of justice is to endeavor towards the abscence of criminal activity. Six felonies reduced to the least one and prolonged over three decades. Not a complete failure thanks to this judge's reasonable determination. However the main concern of justice is how many children has he hurt over the last 32 years? Based on the unfolding of events I'm not convinced that the message sent and lessons learned from the experience don't encourage his behavior.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wall Street prepares to Fight Obama
Check out Primary Blog!
The top rising blog on Technorati this morning was the Daily Intel feed from NY Mag responding to an article.
The article they responded to is here.
As a primary means of promoting this blogs agenda, I will routinely follow, comment and respond to other blogs with high traffic. I will separate these into Big Interest and Private blog responses. I hope to not only generate interest for the dialogue of my blog which i view to be central and applicable to the concerns of every person but even more so to output insightful comments on high-traffic topics of seeming import to others.
At the beginnings of laying down structure for this blog I will now respond to both the blog and inspiring article listed above. Following is a record of the thoughts this topic provokes in me as it pertains to the solution of human kinds current predicament.
Anytime a Larger Fish doesn't get it's way, it naturally always ends up costing us.
Obama's administration of hope has revealed itself as nothing more than an atypical lesser of two evils. When America needs a leader most we get the same watered down politician package.
It's great that the richest people and organizations in the US have the legal clout to question the constitutionality of executive decisions. Wouldn't it be nice if every citizen had practical means to do the same. How much does their supreme court lawyer cost? What does the right to legal representation really mean?
I know that if Obamas administration executively decided to raise my taxes, or that of a profile/demographic group including me, I would have little recourse to executive sodomy aside from bracing myself. That's how it goes, and everybody knows.
Also Obama says that some of the projected $90 billion over a decade reaped by the tax will go towards the deficit. I call bullshit. Some meaning how much? and what will the rest go towards. Come decision time I won't be surprised to see a comparatively negligible percentage allocated toward the deficit which this media article cites as the primary explanation for the use of funds. Will you be surprised when that happens? Will you even hear about it? Will you even care? Primary somehow becomes negligible and what happens to the rest? The rest of the funds will be allocated in small portion to a handful of other good causes with the majority of the funds applied toward other undisclosed expenses.
It's unsettling that the American People including myself have resigned to no longer reasonably expect straight answers or accountability from our leaders. two issues remain, expense discretion and good causes. Firstly if we can't expect straight and accurate disclosure nor accountability than can we at least trust our leaders to "do their thing" well while we are asleep and powerless at the wheel? I believe the answer is no.
While our leaders are clearly elitistly more qualified for and interested in the power they wield, it has become self evident that they routinely and habitually suck at doing their job and corrupt their opportunity to represent the interest and well being of their constituents at large in order to appease prevalent interest rationalizing them as synonymous. One solution to this is enfranchising the voice of each constituent to compete with larger interests especially non personal entities interests which cloud and skew representation and interpretation of popular will. After all if the everyday citizen isn't able to produce a thorn in political sides there is no reasonable incentive for officeholders to concern themselves with constituents concerns.
Secondly the good causes which are disclosed in order to appease the public are frequently paper thin presenting a sugary front which is quickly hacked to pieces by the burdensome details the public cant be disturbed from their milk and cookies, Lexus and cell phones to worry about.
Before the thought of supporting or opposing this decision enters my mind, I know that whatever the fine print, details and practical implementation being proposed is I hold No Confidence in the proceedings that created them.
To tax the banks not to tax the banks or to tax them in another way? The point is moot because it does not include, consider or represent our concerns or interests. We are by definition citizens left behind by our political process. By this I mean every American is left behind by our political process to different degrees and not as an extreme viewpoint but as a casual observance of elitism at work.
The point that is not moot is, after accurately assessing our individual situation, what do we do about it? If we the people cannot actualize a viable solution to the myriad of problems we are each faced with and continue to indulge in the convenience of placing faith in proven incompetent elitism, than people less balanced, hopeful, educated, statured and wholesome than us and more pressured, desperate and isolated than us will progressively take matters into their own hands more and more as they already have to some degree as they always have historically.
Their violence will become a more alarming and immediate problem than our leaderships incompetence. Although the desperate and pressured victims violent response will be peculiarly warranted and appropriate for the countless overlooked injustices which pressure them however they the people will be presented as the enemy of us the people.
In a country for the people by the people, if our leaderships lack of fortitude incites the base rungs of society toward destructive out lashing than it is our lack of fortitude to blame. It is us the everyday citizens, the poor and the mediocre alike which must be responsible for the act of governing. Why is it that you do not have an active role in whether Obama can tax banks or not or the construction and design of the stimulus package and health care? It's not that you're asleep at the wheel because even if you woke up you couldn't do a damn thing about it....... right!?!?
The Trickle Down concept is grossly misconceived and represents a clear conflict of interest. Being that those at the top of economic context are closely related to those at the top of political and decision making context I would point out that this demographic is skilled at the acts of both generating and hording wealth. These skills place the beneficiaries of the Trickle Down approach to be contradictory to the functioning of the strategy which benefits them.
The Trickle Down concept is criminal and its merit has already been tossed out with the trash by everyone who is not subhuman by reason of idiocracy. Conversely I propose the Trickle Up method because those on the bottom of economic and decision making contexts suck at managing money but are great at spending it. These skills indicate a high probability of success for the Trickle Up economic policy.
Seriously if anyone making decisions was actually concerned with economic well-being why wouldn't they do that in the first place? Instead we have rich people pitching table scraps and then implementing economic policy.
They say if wall street is right about this issue that there will be a lot of angry Americans to deal with. However angry Americans are a non concern and are easily dealt with. no amount of angry Americans generated by this or any other issue poses any sort of real pressure that behooves our governing body to address. I believe they mean to say that there will be a lot of "angry private interests of non-personal entities represented by working Americans"- to deal with.
It is only the disposition of collective political pressures that motivate response and not American citizens regardless of their emotional state.
Let's say the banks lose. Don't you think that their organizational ability will naturally endeavor to minimize collateral damage by passing the savings along? Due to our very dependence on larger institutions and complacency to their workings as well as disenfranchisement to their actions exemplifies that anytime a larger fish doesn't get what it wants it naturally always ends up costing us. Who then should we root for?
Thanks for reading. I apologize for ranting. I believe that my blogs will become more concise and less emotionally packed/clouded as it progresses. This is the first article/blog response and understandably contains pent up concerns loosely related to the topic. The point is to get it out, put it down and drive forward. Please view this as a stream of separate thoughts and respond individually to any point that strikes your interest.
The top rising blog on Technorati this morning was the Daily Intel feed from NY Mag
The article they responded to is
As a primary means of promoting this blogs agenda, I will routinely follow, comment and respond to other blogs with high traffic. I will separate these into Big Interest and Private blog responses. I hope to not only generate interest for the dialogue of my blog which i view to be central and applicable to the concerns of every person but even more so to output insightful comments on high-traffic topics of seeming import to others.
At the beginnings of laying down structure for this blog I will now respond to both the blog and inspiring article listed above. Following is a record of the thoughts this topic provokes in me as it pertains to the solution of human kinds current predicament.
Anytime a Larger Fish doesn't get it's way, it naturally always ends up costing us.
Obama's administration of hope has revealed itself as nothing more than an atypical lesser of two evils. When America needs a leader most we get the same watered down politician package.
It's great that the richest people and organizations in the US have the legal clout to question the constitutionality of executive decisions. Wouldn't it be nice if every citizen had practical means to do the same. How much does their supreme court lawyer cost? What does the right to legal representation really mean?
I know that if Obamas administration executively decided to raise my taxes, or that of a profile/demographic group including me, I would have little recourse to executive sodomy aside from bracing myself. That's how it goes, and everybody knows.
Also Obama says that some of the projected $90 billion over a decade reaped by the tax will go towards the deficit. I call bullshit. Some meaning how much? and what will the rest go towards. Come decision time I won't be surprised to see a comparatively negligible percentage allocated toward the deficit which this media article cites as the primary explanation for the use of funds. Will you be surprised when that happens? Will you even hear about it? Will you even care? Primary somehow becomes negligible and what happens to the rest? The rest of the funds will be allocated in small portion to a handful of other good causes with the majority of the funds applied toward other undisclosed expenses.
It's unsettling that the American People including myself have resigned to no longer reasonably expect straight answers or accountability from our leaders. two issues remain, expense discretion and good causes. Firstly if we can't expect straight and accurate disclosure nor accountability than can we at least trust our leaders to "do their thing" well while we are asleep and powerless at the wheel? I believe the answer is no.
While our leaders are clearly elitistly more qualified for and interested in the power they wield, it has become self evident that they routinely and habitually suck at doing their job and corrupt their opportunity to represent the interest and well being of their constituents at large in order to appease prevalent interest rationalizing them as synonymous. One solution to this is enfranchising the voice of each constituent to compete with larger interests especially non personal entities interests which cloud and skew representation and interpretation of popular will. After all if the everyday citizen isn't able to produce a thorn in political sides there is no reasonable incentive for officeholders to concern themselves with constituents concerns.
Secondly the good causes which are disclosed in order to appease the public are frequently paper thin presenting a sugary front which is quickly hacked to pieces by the burdensome details the public cant be disturbed from their milk and cookies, Lexus and cell phones to worry about.
Before the thought of supporting or opposing this decision enters my mind, I know that whatever the fine print, details and practical implementation being proposed is I hold No Confidence in the proceedings that created them.
To tax the banks not to tax the banks or to tax them in another way? The point is moot because it does not include, consider or represent our concerns or interests. We are by definition citizens left behind by our political process. By this I mean every American is left behind by our political process to different degrees and not as an extreme viewpoint but as a casual observance of elitism at work.
The point that is not moot is, after accurately assessing our individual situation, what do we do about it? If we the people cannot actualize a viable solution to the myriad of problems we are each faced with and continue to indulge in the convenience of placing faith in proven incompetent elitism, than people less balanced, hopeful, educated, statured and wholesome than us and more pressured, desperate and isolated than us will progressively take matters into their own hands more and more as they already have to some degree as they always have historically.
Their violence will become a more alarming and immediate problem than our leaderships incompetence. Although the desperate and pressured victims violent response will be peculiarly warranted and appropriate for the countless overlooked injustices which pressure them however they the people will be presented as the enemy of us the people.
In a country for the people by the people, if our leaderships lack of fortitude incites the base rungs of society toward destructive out lashing than it is our lack of fortitude to blame. It is us the everyday citizens, the poor and the mediocre alike which must be responsible for the act of governing. Why is it that you do not have an active role in whether Obama can tax banks or not or the construction and design of the stimulus package and health care? It's not that you're asleep at the wheel because even if you woke up you couldn't do a damn thing about it....... right!?!?
The Trickle Down concept is grossly misconceived and represents a clear conflict of interest. Being that those at the top of economic context are closely related to those at the top of political and decision making context I would point out that this demographic is skilled at the acts of both generating and hording wealth. These skills place the beneficiaries of the Trickle Down approach to be contradictory to the functioning of the strategy which benefits them.
The Trickle Down concept is criminal and its merit has already been tossed out with the trash by everyone who is not subhuman by reason of idiocracy. Conversely I propose the Trickle Up method because those on the bottom of economic and decision making contexts suck at managing money but are great at spending it. These skills indicate a high probability of success for the Trickle Up economic policy.
Seriously if anyone making decisions was actually concerned with economic well-being why wouldn't they do that in the first place? Instead we have rich people pitching table scraps and then implementing economic policy.
They say if wall street is right about this issue that there will be a lot of angry Americans to deal with. However angry Americans are a non concern and are easily dealt with. no amount of angry Americans generated by this or any other issue poses any sort of real pressure that behooves our governing body to address. I believe they mean to say that there will be a lot of "angry private interests of non-personal entities represented by working Americans"- to deal with.
It is only the disposition of collective political pressures that motivate response and not American citizens regardless of their emotional state.
Let's say the banks lose. Don't you think that their organizational ability will naturally endeavor to minimize collateral damage by passing the savings along? Due to our very dependence on larger institutions and complacency to their workings as well as disenfranchisement to their actions exemplifies that anytime a larger fish doesn't get what it wants it naturally always ends up costing us. Who then should we root for?
Thanks for reading. I apologize for ranting. I believe that my blogs will become more concise and less emotionally packed/clouded as it progresses. This is the first article/blog response and understandably contains pent up concerns loosely related to the topic. The point is to get it out, put it down and drive forward. Please view this as a stream of separate thoughts and respond individually to any point that strikes your interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)