Modern Polymathism

Thought Crime Anyone?

   I just found an interesting bill in Congress that just passed the House and is going to the Senate. It's called HR 1955, or the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".

LINK TO FULL TEXT OF BILL

   Let's begin with the definitions section:

- VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

- HOMEGROWN TERRORISM - The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a (group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States) to intimidate or coerce the (United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives).

[all bolding, Italics, and parenthesis are mine]

  Look at the language, facilitating means to "make easier", "be of use" , or "increase the likelihood of" according to Merriam-Webster. Looking at the way many in the government and oligarchy define the word facilitate shows that often even producing a movie criticism of the War could be construed as seditious. This bill keeps with this theme and enforces it.

  We'll come back to ideologically based violence so we can look at the next definition. The italics show what can be defined as terrorism  as:  "use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence". So, if I plan (which could be construed as make any plans for, such as stockpiling emergency provisions and [heavens no!] armament) for a Katrina like event that may bring violence toward myself, family, and friends I am planning to use force.

   Coming back to their exact definition of "ideologically based violence" which is:

- IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE - The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

  Again, they say that the planned use of force to promote (promote = very general) their [any type of] beliefs makes them a terrorist. That's pretty amazing; however, it gets worse. The document HAS NO DEFINITION OF FORCE. Webster's 1st definition is: "strength or energy exerted or brought to bear", and I looked it up and the legal definition of force is not to be found but is mired beneath case law and is basically ambiguous. So, going off Webster, any planned effort to promote your beliefs makes you a terrorist. BEAUTIFUL!

   Now, I know what you're thinking. This is just nit-picking the law to death. It's actually meant to get people like "Islamo-Facists" and the next Timothy McVeigh. To a certain extent that is correct, but wasn't he punished? Don't people who blow up buildings or gun down students already get put in prison for...   ...you know, MURDER. This is the same logic as the so-called Hate Crime legislation. Being a crime isn't enough, no we need to call it something. The only reason for this is propaganda. The race-baiters use hate crimes (a type of thought crime) to put people into certain groups mainly for the purpose of beating up on whitey. The same applies here, but in a much more sinister way.

   You see, if you look at the "findings" section you'll see there are 9 things they find which are all pretty general. The legislation basically makes a commission that will investigate homegrown terrorism and how to prevent it. This basically will be a bunch of academics vying for grant money which will be self-interested and hence will most likely be awarded grant monies if they pander to the government's interests. All this isn't to mention the rumor that the RAND Corporation actually wrote this bill and that the senator who brought this to the floor has known close ties with RAND Corp.

   Let's hope this doesn't pass the Senate, or the door to tyranny will be opened just a little bit more.

Cuban v. O'Reilly - Round II: The Retort (VIDEO)

   It's always funny to see what Bill's going to boycott next. First, it'll be the right of a community to ban how tall your flagpole can be, next it will be P. Diddy's album, and now it's Mark Cuban's Redacted. Almost always something soft and meaningless with a tinge of big brother censorship.

  The movie has a rape scene with some soldiers and an Iraqi girl. Very edgy, although it is based on a true story. Yes, it's disturbing, and perhaps it could even be used as propaganda by the terrorists to inflame their constituencies, however the fact is that it actually did happen. O'Reilly's is boycotting it, which is his definite right - one that he exercises often from his bully pulpit.

   Bill is always talking about how he thinks the story must be heard in journalism, and he has his reporter sent out to find and harass many people he can't get answers out of. So apparently, it's fine for his organization to go out and find a story by all means necessary. At least when it serves his means. When it doesn't, like Redacted, he will bitterly oppose it and say that they're treasonous / seditious.

   Mark Cuban now retorted with a very interesting tactic. He wanted to call Bill out on whether money or principles were more important. So, he put commercials for Redacted on during "The O'Reilly Factor". He thought that he would get shut down by Bill after he found out, but no it actually played.

VIDEO

Nice work Mark; stick it to him.  It seems like money > principles.

Tea Party 07 - RON PAUL!!!

Check out http://www.teaparty07.com if you support personal freedom and minimal government.

Also, if you have a blog, post the link.

More Than a Little Freaked-Out

   The more you delve into a topic for answers, the more questions you will inevitably come up with. It's like some form of inquisitive entropy  is going on. However, have you ever been on a search for knowledge and had a "whoa" moment? One where you stumbled on the entrance to a proverbial labyrinth of new enlightenment? They don't happen everyday, but today reared it's head.

   I have to start off by expressing my love of the Pitt business school, not for is quality of education or it's amazing staff (both of which are wanting), but for it's ease and the free time that allots to me. Today is a Thursday, the last day of class during my week. I'm always happy on this for obvious reasons of it being the longest possible period before more wretched, most dry school. The time after my last class though (when I'm not at E-Thursday's) I get to explore the libraries of Oakland searching for anything that may pique my interest.

   I went to a section that I'd never been to before at Pitt: Security Studies. I don't know why I've never been there; I would think I'd be drawn to those titles - always a fan of strategy and politics. I was looking for a book on coups, and by the wonders of the Dewey Decimal System I was able to check out the surrounding books as well. A lot of the titles were published by RAND Corp.  which always has a habit of sneaking into so many conspiracy theories. Intrigued, I started browsing the selection.

   The titles alone showed me why there was such interest from the black helicopter crowd toward this non-profit so closely tied to the military-industrial complex. First, look at the names of these books; "Ready for Armageddon", "Capital Preservation", "Aerospace Operations in Urban Environments", "Street Smart: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield for Urban Operations"

   If those names aren't spooky, then lets check out the interiors. I don't have them in front of me, but I distinctly remember one of the case studies being the LA Riots, and other Western cities. Another point of interest is how they're all about urban strategy. I know that the war on terror is often fought in cities, but what ever happened to the innovation of jungle combat in so many wars from the Far East, South American, and Africa?

   Also, is particular think about the name "Capital Preservation" as a title for an urban warfare book. Basically, this title makes it seem like the the buildings and infrastructure are really what matters, not the people. Usually, like in WWII we would destroy factories and bases without wanted to kill urban centers (big exceptions: both nuclear events and the fire-bombing of Dresden). Today, we're in areas without much of anything in the way of very complex infrastructure like Iraq and Afghanistan. These sectors are usually rebuilt after anyway as we surgically remove the infrastructure as theater campaign strategy  would dictate (remove the communications, transportation, utilities, etc.).

  So, why then are we referring to our future battles with terms such as: capital retention and Armageddon, while looking at them in a Western context? To me, it seems like they're trying to protect the state from the people, not the people from the threats (which probably will turn out to be the state). I didn't write down anymore names of the books, but I was overcome by an eerie sense that I was seeing something that most wouldn't have put together. Perhaps, due to the lack of interest in military strategy amongst almost everyone but the military there is a gap in the civilian knowledge base for this so fundamental of skills.

   Knowing what we know of the motives of military-industrial complex and of the oligarchy (or corporatocracy, as some leftists would put it), we might see more than a shred of truth to the fact that our armies and government (need I say NSPD 51) are getting fully prepared to contain the citizenry at some future date. I don't believe this as a conspiracy, but more of a preventative measure and a signal to those in the know that they are fully capable of dealing with any threat. I can only imagine now what another terrorist event, let alone the current possibility of a loose nuke, would do to our freedoms.