Sunday, March 28, 2010

bigotry

This is a drastic idea, so bear with me until the end before you exercise your biases to conclude that I am wrong:


I'm becoming increasingly fed up with society's effort to label bigots as being, not only "wrong", but even evil. There's nothing “wrong”, per se, with bigotry. There is something wrong with systemic bigotry; social institutions must be exorcised, as much as it is possible, of prejudice in order that all citizens function within society on an equal footing. But individuals have the inherent right to believe whatever they so choose (or are conditioned or manipulated) to believe, and to systematically attempt to deny them that right (which is what our government and its cultural counterparts are trying to do) is acting in a prejudicial manner toward the individual bigot (by, for example, establishing harsher, more discriminating penalties for "hate crimes"; all people should be punished equally for their (pre-defined) bad actions, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or degree of bigotry).


Everyone whether s/he wants to believe it or not, is prejudiced. It's a fact of human psychological nature. You cannot get away from it. Even the most "advanced"-thinking liberal who tries to see the best in every person discriminates between individuals. (To deny this premise is to discriminate, thereby exhibiting a prejudice toward its obverse.) Bigots have every right to believe as they do, and who are you to try to deny them that right? To do so is to deny the basic freedoms given to us by natural law. Bigots, of course, do not have a right to act upon their beliefs so as to deny others their rights and restrict their freedoms, no more than you have a right to restrict theirs.


The tipping point here is: What constitutes "behavior"? Are ideas expressed in fact acts as opposed to mere beliefs? It's a sticky point. I want to think that they are not; much case law says that in some significant sense they are. I was taught that in this country we have freedom of speech. I was not taught that the freedom of speech that we are guaranteed by our constitution is limited or that freedom of speech is a relative concept. This is a failure of my education. Black and white-minded teachers (my parents included), as a result of their own poor education and prejudice, failed to instill in me a sense of social, cultural, and physical relativity (and I myself, being autistic, failed to intuit and absorb it from my observations and perceptions of social interaction, as many intelligent and/or educated people do). To this day I must continually guard against falling back into a rigid, didactic, either/or, black-or-white mentality. The world, the universe, is not black and white, but many shades of gray; in fact, throw all of the various hues and tones of color in there too while you're at it.


To be safe, to safely guard our rights and freedoms, as with the presumption of innocence, it is best to err on the side of beliefs. Unless an idea/belief is both overtly an act with concrete, demonstrable, and negative consequences, it should be considered a mere belief and should be exempt from actionable decisions against it. Bigots are people too. And every single person, even the most liberal, accepting, caring one, has within at least a tiny spark of bigotry that, given the right (or wrong) circumstances might grow into a flaming inferno of hatred. It's our right by natural law to feel the way we do, though we must be careful how we act on those feelings, because society itself can be as much of a prejudicial prick as any single human being can. And just as there is safety in numbers, so is their danger for those who are not included among the numbered group.


.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

digital scam

There was absolutely no reason to switch broadcast tv over to digital except for corporations to make more money. Most people who were either content to receive the lower quality analog signal (i.e., those who chose not to pay for cable) or those who could not afford it were satisfied with broadcast television as it had been. The quality of the picture was not an issue for them. And, as far as the extra bandwidth for each channel goes, nobody's putting any content on it that is not either duplicative or out and out dedicated to full time television sales (infomercials, etc.). And I used to get all local stations. Now, even with an antenna, I get only three.

The switchover to broadcast digital was a total scam of the public by the media conglomerates. All you have to do to verify this is to look at the additional sales the switchover generated: new TV sets (so that converter boxes would not be necessary), antennas (because no one is in a location where they can receive the high quality signal necessary from every station in their area), converter boxes (because no company sold any box for a price anywhere near to the $40 coupon the government issued). The whole deal was a huge corporate con game.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

because they're lips move

I always assume that anyone who wants me to pay them money, for any reason whatsoever, is lying to me. It's better than assuming they are not and end up getting burned.

And I always assume that anything any official corporate or government spokesperson or politician says is a lie. Because, odds are, it is. They'd have little reason to speak otherwise.

Because they all know very well that to speak out is to invite trouble. Never call attention to yourself unless absolutely necessary. And always deny everything you can.

I'd say that the exception to this rule is for advertising purposes, but it's only half an exception: you must speak up to advertise, of course; but most ads inherently lie.

I'm assuming here that exaggeration is a form of lying. If a product or service is as good as they claim it is, they would have no need at all to advertise it. People would know.

And while I'm on the subject of advertising, I don't care how well meaning your organization is or how much I might socially or politically agree with you, if you're going to call me up and leave a message on my machine that goes on and on forever (the last one, today, was over a minute long), at best I'm going to disregard it; or, worse, if I'm in a foul mood, I'm going to refuse to support you altogether or even switch my allegiance to your opponent if their "cause" is anywhere intelligible (because I find myself on the fence about a lot of issues). Stop calling me, assholes! I don't want to hear your messages! My phone is a utility, not your mechanism of mass communication.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

lying bastards

My credit card companies (as well as others, especially Verizon), using the rationale of saving trees via eliminating paper use, prompt me, every time I log into their websites, to change to electronic billing, and yet they continue to mail me paper advertisements for any number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with billing. What's up with this? Are they really interested in saving paper, or what? Verizon is the worst. They send me (coated, the worst form of) paper solicitations to expand my services at least once a week; and I get additional copies of this junk sent to “resident” with the weekly junk mail. They don’t give a frell about saving trees, they're just trying to save money so as to increase profits for their shareholders, disingenuous bastards that they are.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

corporate grifters

People are increasingly recognizing the fact that insurance companies are no longer honest, legitimate companies, that they've slowly ruined whatever little bit of good reputation they had when they began resorting to all kinds of nefarious practices and excuses in order to prevent paying claims so as to increase their profits.

As a consequence, people are opting out of insurance (only the most gullible, socially brainwashed people, those who work for companies that provide it cheaply, or the rich still have it), figuring that the downside is not as bad as getting ripped off would be if and when the insurance company failed to pay off after a legitimate claim was filed.

Therefore, the government has to get involved (spurred on by lobbying, of course) and start mandating that insurance policies be purchased. First, a long time ago, it was house insurance (which, to be fair, banks, not the government, mandated; for good reason); then it was car insurance; and next it's health insurance.

Why do you think that companies increasingly fail to provide insurance to their employees? They recognize it has become a scam business and they don't really want to continue to participate; or, if they feel that their employees will not like it, they require that their employees pay a part of the premium, which has been increasing over time.

Employees, in order to maintain their insurance, must now buy into the scam; and when they do, human psychology dictates that they adopt a belief consistent with their behavior: They're paying for it, therefore they must believe that it's worthwhile. It's classic con game psychology. Once they've got you hooked, you maintain the hold.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

Monday, February 22, 2010

bad company

Last night, Geraldo defended a NY top cop (didn't catch his name), stating that he was a friend and a "good man". The guy was accused and recently convicted of having his home remodeled for less than the going rate, which constituted corruption (bribery?, since the work was done by Mafia-types?) in the eyes of what Geraldo considered to be an overzealous judge.

The "news" piece started with the cop's wife complaining about how her family life has been upset and they have suffered a great deal as a result, as if that had anything to do with anything. "Real" criminals' family lives are equally upset by arrests and convictions. Too bad. It goes with the territory.

Next came Geraldo's defense. His primary points were that other dignitaries (he named one or two of them; again, I didn't catch the names) got much lighter sentences for the same crime and that the prosecutors and especially the judge were overly strict.

Listen, Geraldo. It's right for the judge to be strict, since this is a cop who's supposed to be protecting the public from this kind of nefarious activity. If you want to argue the point, argue the case for the others having gotten off with a wrist slap for being the corrupt assholes they were. You do the crime, you do the time.

And the guy being your friend and a "good man" is irrelevant. Besides, truly good men don't do corruption. If you had argued that he was innocent, that would be a different matter; but, since you didn't, I'm assuming that even you thought he did it. He got what he deserved. And one day so will you. Meanwhile, watch out for those chairs.

.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

legalizing corruption

The government is supposed to be preventing or at least acting to minimize, corruption, by catching criminals and punishing them, rather than by doing what they're currently doing, legalizing the corruption, which is what in fact the current system of lobbying and the way they "punish" corporations are: bribes to pass legislation that favor interest groups and wrist-slapping companies with fines instead of sending malfeasant executives to jail.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.