This Is The Modern Publishing Business

David Gaughran’s latest post is a quick and insightful read on how the legitimate publishing industry often supports illegitimate publishing scams. All new, indie, and aspiring authors need to read this!

David Gaughran

asandfriendsnewScammers used to operate at the edges of the publishing business, but have wormed their way into its heart. And the entire industry is in denial.

An unintentionally revealing aspect of the tiresome Amazon-Hachette dispute was a series of statements from an organization purporting to advocate for authors’ rights. One of the heinous crimes Amazon was said to have committed was treating books like toasters.

With such a claim, Authors United was attempting to tap into a current of feeling about the commoditization of literature – as if Amazon was the first company to put a price tag on a book, and writers around the country were hitherto living off laurels and kudos. It’s tempting to suggest that other entities in the publishing business might be doing as well as Amazon if they also treated books like toasters and attempted to sell the bloody things, but I digress.

What this…

View original post 529 more words

Money: The Root of All Evil and One Hell of a Lie


What our entire world runs on: “money, money, mon-eyy… mooonee-eey!” (cue “The Love of Money” by the O’jays.)

The O’jays said it better than I ever could.


The following blog is a guest rant of the political kind from my long-time friend Brian Rebmann, who has earned a degree in Business Management and has a lot of experience working within the system. He’s also a recovered capitalism-supporter, and you can consider this blog part of his penance 🙂


Money, the thing which we go into the world to earn and which is an essential component to our survival in the world, is nothing more than paper in most instances. In a more global context, money doesn’t even have to be paper in the literal sense; it’s just one computer talking to another and transmitting sets of numbers between each other.

It’s all just a lie; smoke and mirrors. Money is paper. Money is a supposed to be a medium of exchange. However, in my experience, money is a tool to be used and manipulated by others to achieve certain ends such as control and power. We need money to survive and/or otherwise live. And, the money supply in any country is controlled by a handful of people who are politically savvy. In any business or organization you have overspending, mishandling, bad investment/lending practices and, in general, spending more than you take in while dealing with crippling debts and over-extended lines of credit, which should surely mean the end of the organization.

Well, I’ve got news for you: that is the state the United States is in as a fiscal entity. And, in spite of all this, the fiscal entity keeps leading money to others who can’t or won’t pay it back. So, due to the government bailing out major financial institutions in 2008, the economy still struggles and has not recovered and/or returned to prosperity [that’s the Great Recession, dewd! – CN].



“You can’t afford the electric bill this month, Mrs. Parker? Well, I sympathize, but I hope you’re prepared to freeze your little elderly ass off until you come up with the cash! Yes, I know it’s winter, but I do not  get paid to care!”


There is an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine  called “Past Tense” which illustrates my points here quite well. In brief, the main characters of DS9 get transported back to the early 21st century, maybe a decade into our own future. There, they encounter an Earth wherein the economy had collapsed; the homeless, unemployed, and mentally ill were secluded into walled areas of the city called Sanctuary Districts where they were not provided for properly, re: food and medical care. In the plot of this episode, technology had taken jobs away from people, which caused massive unemployment. And, because the homeless and unemployed were out of sight and out of mind, no one in power thought to do anything about the social problems that the situation caused.


“God may control the heavens, but we CEOs control the material world that all mortal men actually live in. And they worship us just the same! Let’s see you top that, Mr. Jehovah!”


I believe that like any overworked system, no matter how many fixes or patches you apply to it, eventually, I believe, the United States and its economy will collapse and descend into chaos because of poor management. Considering all of the above, that’s to be expected, as all things end and begin anew. However, while the economy may collapse, I’m confident the human race will live on and thrive. I wish I could say that the human race would evolve into the fine people Gene Roddenberry envisioned, but something tells me that we will never reach that “fictional finalism,” as my therapist would call it [nice to see that both you, and the shrink who is treating you, are both such cynics, my friend! Remember Monty Python’s classic theme from the ironically named film Life of Brian: “always look on the bright side of life * cue whistling chorus*”… if a group of men crucified on crosses could try to see the bright side of things, so can you and your shrink! 🙂 – CN].

Japanese and French Spree Killings Repudiate the Anti-Gun Fanaticism of the American Left

Prohibited sign - gun ban


Sadly, we live in an age where the militarization of American culture, and the worship of violence and reverence for the military in an economic global order that thrives on perpetual war, is at an all-time high. Even worse, we have now reached a point where these horrific spree killings have spread beyond the U.S. and into other Western nations, as well as nations in the East that have become increasingly influenced and indoctrinated into Western cultural values and consumerist behavior.




Of course, part of the reason that the problem persists is because the American Left utterly refuses to put emotion aside and take a hard, logical look at the true sources of the problem. The perpetrators of these spree killings range from individuals sympathetic with terrorist organizations spawned by the imperialist policies of the West; gang members warring to achieve power, territory, and control over resources (read: the recreational drug industry) in a microcosm of what the governments of the current world order regularly engage in with each other; terribly bullied and ostracized young people rejected by a deeply conformist and hierarchical culture who are motivated by retribution and react in the only way they feel possible; disgruntled employees thrown out of work and cast into the extreme poverty that is a worldwide feature of the capitalist system and its private ownership of the essential services and its characteristic refusal to disperse any items or services unless one has the financial resources to purchase them, regardless of need; and a surfeit of mentally ill individuals who have gone over the edge due to all of the alienation, extreme economic insecurity, and abusive hierarchical social institutions that naturally mirror the economic hierarchical, top-down chain of command which all but a lucky few are forced to live under and exist in life-long servitude to.

In other words, different types of individuals whose mad actions are influenced by the same basic set of economic and social forces serving as a catalyst. This, as noted above, includes a glorification of the military (as long as they wear the “right” flag emblem on their uniforms) and the importance our culture places on using violence to solve issues both abroad and domestically, the latter courtesy of our heavily armed and increasingly militarized police whom the communities they monitor have no control over, and who thus have a strong penchant for profiling oppressed minorities as easy targets to meet their arrest quotas and personal need to vent their own mental issues upon.

Of course, whenever a spree killing occurs in America, the majority of the Left cannot be counted on to even consider taking a deep and uncomfortably honest analysis of the above aspects of the system. This is, in part, because the Left has become increasingly inured to the system and have become its sometimes reluctant supporters rather than opponents ever since Reagan, the Clintons, and Obama divested them of most of their idealism, optimism, and willingness to embrace fundamental change and move onto a better system. It’s also in part because the Left, much like their sometimes opponents/rivals/semi-collaborators on the Right, are prone to emotion on certain issues which detract from logical, common sense analysis of the system and the manifold problems it causes.

Instead, the simplistic reaction and explanation for any spree killing in America is always a knee-jerk, emotionally charged condemnation of guns. They will start spouting sometimes dubious statistics on how awful guns are, how many accidents they cause per year, and sometimes the claim  that only a total “nutjob” would ever perceive the need to own a firearm, let being capable of using one responsibly and within reasonable circumstances in the impoverished streets common to a system whose inequality breeds crime, brutal competition, any number of neuroses,  mass insecurity, and severe mistrust between members of the working class. And this in an environment where American police insist they must be more heavily armed than a typical infantryman in Afghanistan in order to safely conduct their job on the streets of a typical large city where the “dog eat dog” mindset of our vaunted capitalist system rules over virtually every aspect of our day-to-day lives.

Every gun owner is compared to the wacky members of the right-wing NRA by the Left, even as many of them simultaneously cheer any soldier taking orders from the U.S. government who lays waste to a Middle Eastern city street or drops a salvo of cluster bombs on innocent families to get maybe one or two suspected terrorists; and likewise applaud them as heroes even if their courage is genuine but terribly misdirected, or amounting to nothing more than a “soldier” operating a lethal drone from the safety of a cabin located literally thousands of miles away. Not all liberals and progressives are hypocritical in this fashion, of course, and many steadfastly denounce pre-emptive imperialist war and militarized domestic police as much as they do the right and competence of common citizens to bear arms. More than enough of them display this contradiction of values, however.

These liberal Democrats are so overwhelmed by emotion on this single subject, they will boldly initiate a  24-hour sit-in at the House of Representatives until the Republicans agree to enact anti-gun legislation, while lacking the will or the kahunas to do the same in regards to compelling House Republicans to pass legislation for universal health care, a federal $15 minimum wage, a guarantee of jobs for everyone under a system of public works, the diminishing of our bloated military spending and re-disbursement of funds for needed social programs, paid maternity  and  paternity leave, free universal college education and forgiveness of college debt for all current and former students, the creation of community committees to oversee the conduct of local police, etc, et al.  One so-called progressive recently mentioned the Democratic sit-in over gun legislation to me and said, “if that’s not progressive for the Democrats, then I don’t know what is.” In my typically long-winded fashion, I not-so-simply pointed to all of the above progressive measures the Democrats have refused to stand up for in a similar fashion, and told him, “if they stood up for all of that  with the same determination they did for gun control alone, then not only would this be a far more progressive nation, but the main source of all forms of violence, including these spree killings, would be greatly diminished.”




As I write these words, yet another of these horrible spree killings has occurred in America, this one once again in Florida, where a popular teen club in Fort Myers was subject to a mass shooting which took the lives of two confirmed patrons and injured as many as 16 others, some of them being in critical condition as of yesterday morning. This particular shooting was believed to be gang-related, rather than terrorist-inspired like the recent Florida spree killing at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Of course, this latest tragedy in Fort Myers can be expected to cause the Left to typically blame availability of guns as the main or sole culprit, and ignore everything I discussed above. This is because their emotional attachment to the issue surrounding the production and sale of any item that is specifically designed to be used as a weapon by civilians causes them to fear and hate guns based on  what they represent in their minds. This is why we will also hear nary a word on the far greater number of accidents per year involving automobiles, power tools, or swimming pools, and what can be done to reduce such tragedies, nor anything about the many items that can be used as weapons as readily as any gun (e.g., sledgehammers, sharp screwdrivers, weighted flashlights, hardwood walking sticks, baseball bats, steak knives, box cutters, or vicious dogs), because each of these things have utility purposes and are not explicitly designed for use as weapons even though they can, and often do, serve as very deadly makeshift weapons. But because of their primary purpose, they fail to elicit the same degree of emotional response as do guns. As a result, their proven serious threat potential is either seriously down-played in comparison to guns, or completely overlooked.

Two further spree killing tragedies, however, recently took place in nations where guns are far more difficult to come by than in America. These horrible incidents throw a major monkey wrench into the simplistic and emotion-based argument of the American Left that availability of guns to civilians is the main cause of this incessant violence, as if simply looking at a gun is enough to provoke murderous tendencies in people who would otherwise have no inclination — or at least no capability — of launching a murder spree.

The first such incident occurred in Nice, France earlier in July of 2016, courtesy of 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who was responsible for 84 confirmed deaths, a far greater number than the Orlando and Fort Myers spree killings. This tragedy was also said to be terrorist-inspired. But there’s a major twist in this particular act of horror which throws some major aspersions on the pet focus of the Left that strict gun control is the primary solution to this problem: Bouhlel didn’t use a gun to conduct this obscene death toll. He used a perfectly legal and not-too-difficult-to-acquire 2o-ton truck. 

Yes, think about that for a minute, fellow progressives, and let it percolate in your mind for a bit, hopefully giving pause to unbridled emotional hatred and fear of guns and acting as a catalyst for some much-needed rational thought and analysis. This incident garnered but a minimum of coverage in the American press, and I suspect it was because the liberals had no emotional basis for which4 to latch onto this story. Were they supposed to demand a ban on trucks? No, not because it was unreasonable to do so, but because as deadly a weapon as this incident proves certain vehicles can make — much more so than even a high-powered assault rifle — trucks are not designed for the specific purpose  of being used as weapons.

As a result, this incident lacked any serious emotional impact on the matter of the worsening culture of violence and spree killings that is now plaguing the entire world, because it didn’t involve the symbolic spectre of guns  for the liberals to build the necessary emotion to rally around. This, despite the truly horrific number of deaths caused by this particular murder binge despite not involving a firearm of any kind.



This weapon of death must be banned, lest further spree killings occur!


And of course,  the liberals didn’t bother to find this incident as any reason to conduct a thorough analysis on the economic and social aspects of the current global order which creates a culture of violence. Is that perhaps because doing so would offer clear evidence that a simple near-obsessive focus on banning guns or attacking all gun owners as irresponsible, violence-promoting spree killings waiting to happen is not  the ultimate solution to this problem? Is it because doing so would make it clear that a much more incisive and nuanced analysis into the very system we live under, and which so many modern day Democrats misguidedly if sometimes reluctantly dedicate themselves to preserving, would be in order? Would it maybe undermine the anti-gun mania of the Left by offering proof that guns are not necessary for even the spree killings with the highest death tolls, and that you have to look to the system itself because you can’t ban or disparage absolutely every item which can  be used as a deadly weapon no matter the reason it was actually designed?


burglar image01

Take a guess which image the typical American Liberal considers the main source of all violence in the world today… the one in the funny burglar’s right hand, or the one in his left? 




Now let’s take a look at the second, even more recent spree killing which occurred in July of 2016, this one all the way in the Eastern domain of Japan.

Satoshi Uematsu, a 26-year-old unemployed man of Sagamihara, a city located 30 miles west of Tokyo, went on a terrifying and tragic killing spree at a care centre for disabled people, where he was previously employed. He slaughtered 19 people and injured another 25 — 20 of them seriously — before regaining some semblance of calm and quietly walking into a police station to turn himself in. Uematsu’s killing spree, and the number of seriously injured in addition to the murders, is right up there in number with the two Florida killing sprees which likewise occurred in July of ’16. This incident was neither terrorist nor gang-related, but most likely the result of a disgruntled ex-employee who went off the deep end due to his insecure financial circumstances and suddenly connected disabled people (as opposed to gays, blacks, etc.) to the source of his problems (as opposed to the global system which he lived and was forced to work within). But here is the major twist that puts a further damper on the “blame the availability of guns” mantra so often spouted by the American Left when something like this occurs: Uematsu, who lives in a country where guns are much more difficult to come by than in America, utilized a single knife  to conduct this slaughter.

Yes, you read that right. Due to growing up in a quiet area of Japan (until now, that is), Uematsu likely never even saw a gun outside of television and video games, yet the lack of a firearm in his possession, and the general lack of accessibility to guns in his country, didn’t stop him from improvising and using a readily available and very deadly weapon to carry out the worst mass murder to occur in Japan for many generations. Is it any coincidence that it happened around the same time as the spree killings occurring not only in the U.S., but also the one that ensued just a week earlier in France? And like the similarly horrific killing spree in France, is it any coincidence that this happened without a firearm being involved?

Let’s also note this incident while I’m on the subject: in 2001, after killing sprees first became a tragically recurring phenomenon in the present era of the neo-liberal militarization of world culture and the economy as a whole after the 1999 Columbine massacre, a mentally unbalanced 37-year-old man named Mamoru Takuma, described as a drifter and a sufferer of schizophrenia, entered an elementary school in Ikeda, Japan, located ten miles north of Osaka, and launched a brutal spree massacre on the students and teachers within, murdering eight children and injuring 15 other kids and school staff. And he did this all of this not with a firearm, but with a kitchen knife  — yes, not simply a knife, but one that was readily available and not designed for combat or use as a self-defense weapon, but as a typical utility item.

Of course, this incident garnered a similar lack of focus or deep analysis by the American Left, because it didn’t involve a gun, and thus lacked any emotional or political resonance, and thus no incentive to put aside the anti-gun mentality and take a hard look at the type of world order we’re now living in, and what it does to so many members of the working class. And it provided further uncomfortable evidence that the availability of guns is not the prime cause of the problem, and that even completely banning guns and criminalizing all gun ownership wouldn’t bring an end to the problem.


woman with kitchen knife

“Just looking  at this thing makes me want to run out and stab a whole retirement home full of senior citizens! What possessed me to think I was responsible enough to have one of these things in my kitchen?”




American liberals can boast all they want that mass killings do not occur with the same regularity in countries where availability of guns is far more restricted, as that situation seems to be rapidly and tragically changing. It may simply mean that spree killings with firearms are more rare in these other countries, as individuals in largely gun-free nations are quickly beginning to make due with the multitude of readily available items (e.g., vehicles, common kitchen knives) that can easily be turned into a deadly weapon in the hands of a madman, and inflict a comparable degree of damage (if not worse) than even an assault rifle equipped with a mega-clip magazine. And this is beginning to strongly indicate that not only are the availability of guns far from the main source of the problem, but if strict gun control legislation is finally passed in the U.S., those members of what Marx labeled the lumpenproletariat  who are driven over the edge by the forces endemic to this dog-eat-dog, military-worshiping system will easily find ways of making do with various utility-items-cum-potential-deadly-weapons, much as their foreign counterparts are beginning to do, and have in fact been doing for over two decades and even longer.


Maybe the American Left can take some inspiration from how some individuals quoted in the Japanese media reacted to the above 2001 incident and a series of similar, previous spree killings during the 1990s (one of them involving not firearms, but sarin gas released in a Tokyo subway by a “death cult” which left 12 people dead), as noted by journalist Calvin Sims in the above linked article he penned: “In recent years, Japan has experienced a growing number of violent attacks, including bus hijackings, child abuse, murders of parents and juvenile assaults, that have caused many Japanese to worry that their country is in a state of social decline. Japan is also undergoing wrenching social change widely attributed to the country’s long-term economic downturn and shifting values.”

Further, Sims quoted Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as saying, ”We have to ask for the opinions of experts on what we should do about the collapse of a safe society.”

Hmmm, considering that perhaps the blame may be the problems caused by the unstable economic system we live under and the type of “shifting” (euphemism for “increasingly corrupt”) values it encourages, rather than on the easy accessibility of kitchen knives, heavy trucks, and sarin gas, let alone the mostly non-existent firearms to be found in the Land of the Rising Sun? That is quite novel by the standards of the American Left, their media, and their political parties, and I’m hoping there is a valuable lesson for them to take from the less emotional and more logically reasoned statements from Sims and Koizumi.

Regarding certain isolated incidents of senseless murders occurring in Japan during the 1990s, Sims recorded this:

“Last year, a 17-year-old boy, angry after a fight with his father, bludgeoned a passer-by at a Tokyo shopping district. Another teenager beat his mother to death with a metal bat, and a third stabbed an elderly neighbor to death because he said he wanted to experience killing someone.

“Attacks in schools and subways have also been increasing. In 1999, a young man stabbed a 7-year-old boy in Kyoto to death in front of his classmates in a school playground.”

In deference to the concerns of a colleague of mine who actually lives in Japan, he disagreed with an  earlier draft of this blog, saying there are specific aspects of Japanese culture which explain these murders, including the spree killings in 1995, 2001, and 2016, and which cannot put the blame on Western cultural and political tampering. He believes that my connecting these incidents to the Western spree killings is comparable to a conspiracy theory. I will note his concerns and mention the following in response, out of fairness to both his opinion and my intentions here:

1. No doubt Japan has a culture quite distinct from anything in the West, as well as specific political events, which combined to influence people there, including the spree killers being discussed on this blog. But I believe and maintain my stance that the above evidence strongly suggests a connection between these similar acts of violence, many of which happened literally within days of each other in different parts of the world. Despite the differences in culture and political history between the West and an Eastern nation like Japan, the fact remains that they share an economic system based on private ownership of the industries and production for profit, and are all heavily involved in a global interconnected market system. The effects on the common people by these capitalist policies — unemployment, inequality due to strict class divisions, fierce competition between workers for jobs, dehumanizing work conditions, financial insecurity and instability, a heavy militarization of their respective societies to  operate within a global system based on perpetual war — result in all types of anxieties and neuroses among the labor class citizens, so I do  not believe this is all a coincidence.

2. I think the evidence clearly shows that you cannot blame the availability of guns alone for the problems of spree killings, nor isolated incidents of brutal violence, because guns are not required to do such killings. Banning guns would not solve the problem; it would simply result in spree killers and other murderers using implements not designed to be used as weapons which nevertheless provide lethal substitutes for guns which can provide the same number of victims.


So what will the reaction of the American Left be to the state of affairs represented by these recent killing sprees in France and Japan? Will they once again give into emotion, and this time insist that the solution is a simple banning of trucks over a certain size and weight, or kitchen knives of a certain length, or power tools that operate for a particularly long time under a single charge, or at least strict background checks on anyone who wishes to purchase these items for their kitchen or garage? Or will they perhaps take a cue from the people of Japan circa the 1990s to the present and conduct a strong, honest, and distressingly objective analysis of the system we live under, the the type of culture it creates seemingly everywhere, and what it does to a growing number of 99 percenters the world over? I’m hoping the evidence I present here, and which others have presented elsewhere, will spur my fellow progressives into putting aside the emotion to consider taking the latter route.


spree killer

The average gun owner in the eyes of the American Left. He just can’t wait to shoot somebody, even if it’s his own image in a mirror! (He recently shot the last mirror in his house to pieces, so he now has a picture of his mom in the cross-hairs.)


To My Fellow Progressives: Stop Defending Hillary!

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders01
Hillary: “Pssst! And don’t you ever  bring up universal health care, free college tuition, or the word ‘socialism’ ever again, Bernie.” 
Bernie: “Okay, I told you, Hillary, I’m sorry, I’m sorry… ‘stronger together,’ remember?”
This particular political tirade is in response to some conversations I’ve recently had both on and off Facebook with individuals who present themselves as fellow progressives. The subject is in regards to their continued misguided support for Hillary Clinton, and/or their insistence that she is the “lesser evil” of Donald Trump rather than an individual of equal demerits to take up the Power Throne in the Oval Office. Some of these individuals I had these exchanges with were valued friends and family, others mere acquaintances, and others simply individuals who participated in certain threads or comments sections of political sites I was also engaging in discourse on.
Most importantly, however, this blog is about providing good evidence to back up my statements, particularly in the absence of any evidence on the end of the opposing view, and to hopefully convince as many people on the Left as possible why they need to give up any respect for Hillary they may be holding onto.

The first of my delightful (yea, right!) tirades will be in response to too many of my fellow progressives who insist on supporting Hillary Clinton by saying, “She’s not the monster that so many make her out to be.” Seriously? I have to ask people who say this: where, exactly, did they acquire the information to back up such a statement? Or perhaps more importantly, are they in fact basing it on any actual information or evidence, or could their defense of her possibly be based on any of the following factors:


1. Are you simply supporting Hillary because she is “not Trump”? If so, that may make you a good Democrat, but certainly not a good progressive. Have you seriously looked at Hillary’s policies and conduct over the many years since her family took power in Washington? Warning: you’re about to see a lot of that presented here! Please consider what you will see objectively before you conclude she is a lesser evil than Trump, rather than simply a rival who wants essentially the same policies but speaks less forthrightly and more in “code” than The Donald does.


2. Are you defending Hillary in deference to her gender rather than her behavior in office? If so, that is not progressive or feminist thinking, but identity-biased, anti-egalitarian, and even thinly veiled misandry. It constitutes a school of thought which is increasingly coming to be called “oppressive liberalism” — the negative, reactionary side of the Left, which twists honorable platforms favoring progressive change and female empowerment into policies which canonize and demonize individuals based upon their identity category rather than their actual behavior or the content of their character. If you fancy yourself a true progressive and feminist who wants to see a female president, why not prove your honor and scruples by voting NOT simply for the most powerful and “electable” female candidate, but one who actually supports progressive values and feminist empowerment by virtue of their principles and behavior such as Dr. Jill Stein or Sedinam Curry, both of whom are presidential nominees for the Green Party? Or again, do you favor powerful  women over that of principled women who actually support the 99%? Please ask yourself the above questions, and demand you give yourself an honest answer! Also please note the difference between female power  and female  empowerment, and understand how one is the mere inversion of hierarchy whereas the other is the full repudiation of it..


3. Or is it because Hillary is a Democrat, and you insist that this second party of Wall Street can still be “reformed” to give up all of that lucre thrown into its coffers by the corporate lobbyists, divest itself of the numerous pro-corporate centrists who dominate and control the inner workings of the party via the Democratic Leadership Council (DNC), so that it it will ever again stand up for the 99%? Or do you think being a centrist yourself in any way benefits a person belonging to the 99%? Or that supporting a puppet of Wall Street and the Democrats as they are today is the best we can actually achieve in this country, or worse, the best we should  actually achieve?  If you’re one of the millions of centrists who are having severe financial problems, and can’t find a job that pays enough so that you do not have to continuously choose between rent and groceries, then you need to do some serious thinking and re-assess your political loyalties.  That honestly makes as much logical sense as a group of politically active people of color supporting the Ku Klux Klan by insisting that it has an important place in the world even if they must concede that the Klan is “imperfect” and sometimes does things they do not particularly care for. That analogy is by no means outlandish if you honestly think about the logic or wisdom of a member of the labor class supporting a politician or political party which stands for the interests of the capitalist class. The majority of the 1% is comprised of privileged individuals who consider themselves superior to the 99% much as the Klan was comprised of white people who considered themselves superior to individuals of color, so the comparison is very apt. Yet how many black people would be foolish enough to vote for a political party based on support for the Klan’s ideologies and policies? So why are so many members of the labor class continuing to align themselves with political parties who serve the interests and agendas of the capitalist class, and seek to perpetuate and even escalate the conditions that are crushing both ourselves and the biosphere itself?


I wish all of you Hillary supporters would seriously ask yourselves the above three questions before you put any portion of your heart and soul into Hillary, as opposed to, say, supporting and helping build a third party with candidates and platforms which actually represent the interests of the 99% (the Green Party being the largest example). Didn’t the eight-year debacle of Obama in office teach you a lesson? Please learn from your mistakes instead of insisting on repeating them every election year ad nauseum and ad infinitum.




Here we start the fun part: providing the evidence so many of you need to see and heed.

This video consists of a straight 13 minutes of news footage featuring the numerous times Hillary has been caught on camera lying and backpedaling with the flow of politics. Think of it as a detailed video history of how often she backtracks on various positions depending upon what is politically popular at any given time (e.g., gay marriage rights, her position on NAFTA, her non-support for universal health care), about whether or not she is a progressive or centrist (yes, Virginia, there is a difference!), about how she lied about being under gunfire upon arriving in Bosnia circa 1996 (this one was epic!), and how often she was caught contradicting herself during Senate hearings on her recent shameful e-mail scandal… yes, the one the Senate decided not to go forward with charges on despite all of these stated contradictions! But I guess we all agree that powerful politicians and average people should be subject to different standards when it comes to criminal activity, right? And it doesn’t matter if Hillary is a liar, untrustworthy, or a chronic flip-flopper as long as she “gets things done,” as the narrative claims, huh?

Let’s close this section of the blog by reading author and journalist Michael Walsh’s article for the New York Post  exposing a long laundry list of Hillary’s lies, thus making it all the more baffling as to why so many people on the Left insist on trusting her in the most powerful seat in the world. Remember Whitewater? Remember her claims of attempting to join the Marine Corps. in 1975? Click on the link and revisit Hillary’s long history of doing what she does best (hint: it’s not  enacting sensible foreign and domestic policies for a democratic nation).


Hillary Clinton looking puzzled

“Hey, you act like it’s my fault these people keep believing my lies!”




Very telling is this PJTV video where several Hillary supporters are asked what they think Hillary’s greatest accomplishments as Secretary of State happen to be. Note how none of them can actually point out anything substantive, instead giving numerous statements of how cool it would be to have a woman president (Jill Stein and Sedinam Curry, please!); or how one of them said it would be cool to have a Clinton family legacy in the White House just like we already had a Bush legacy; or how one interviewee mentioned that Hillary did “many” great things as Secretary of State, but he would be damned if he could name one, since he’s not up-to-date on politics (in other words, he has no idea what she did as Secretary of State, but who cares,’cause “Hillary is cool” and that’s the “in” thing to say!). Another says she made “no major mistakes” as Secretary of State… huh?! Um… Libya! Syria! Women’s rights activists in Honduras! (Sorry, feminist supporters of Hillary!) Baiting Russia and China! Need I go on?


Please note the numerous actions and policies, both domestic and foreign, which incited people to protest Hillary when she visited her home town of Chappaqua in this video. In particular is how she is taken to task for the cover-up and lies she was responsible for in Benghazi, when she refused to offer aid to four American journalists trapped there.

But now let’s look at what may arguably be her greatest accomplishment of all time: the brutal sustained and agonizing torture and murder of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Here is a link to a video of Hillary gleefully saying in an interview, “We came, we saw, he died!” regarding Muammar Gaddafi when the latter was barbarically beaten and sodomized with a spear by NATO rebels whose coup of the Libyan government was supported by the U.S. government, and largely orchestrated by Hillary circa 2011 during her reign as Secretary of State. And yes, that is seriously Hillary laughing about this in the interview; she is not  being taken out of context here! But c’mon now, Hillary isn’t the monster so many people try to make of her, right? Puh-lease, people! Look at her conduct in this video!


Hillary Clinton with thumbs up

Hillary watching the video-taped mob murder of Muammar Gaddafi as she waited for her servant to finish making the popcorn.




Those among you who are actually informed about politics yet continue to say Hillary is a lesser evil than Trump often argue that unlike The Donald, she is not racist. That claim, of course, only holds the metaphorical H2O if you judge Trump by what he verbalizes forthrightly to what Hillary only says in code, and  you ignore the nature of the policies she has enacted and endorsed.

Someone whose intelligence and knowledge I greatly respect also recently told me to ask any black voter I know about this matter, and they will say they support Hillary Clinton. This must mean she cannot possibly be racist, right? Well, again, that’s only if you look past the self-serving networking Hillary has done with the black community due to her connections with the Democratic ticket and look at her coded statements and the end results of her policies.


Let’s take a look at both of these thing now.


We’ll start by revisiting Hillary’s statement about the group people chiefly targeted by the infamous, very conservative “three strikes and you’re out” Crime Bill of 1994, enacted by   her husband and endorsed heavily by First Lady Hillary herself, specifically the group of young people she referred to as “super-predators”. Here is Exhibit #1. It quickly became evident that the term “super-predator” was a loaded slur against young black people. In case you want to argue that it was not young black people she was referring to with that word, consider this uncomfortable fact: that 1994 legislation resulted in mass incarceration of a disproportionate number of young black males, which made it quite clear whom these laws were heavily targeting. I would wager that the large number of black people who support Hillary are ignorant of this fact, just like the bulk of everyone outside of the 1% who continues to support her.


Let’s now look at this Exhibit #2, a video where we see young black activist                           Ashley Williams (not to be confused with that guy on Starz who kills the Deadites!), who paid $500 to attend one of Hillary’s speeches (hey, the rich have to make a living, right?) and there demanded an apology for underhandedly referring to young black people as “super-predators” while endorsing legislation which resulted in a record number of incarcerations for young blacks, particularly males. Please note that a huge amount of these incarcerations were not due to gang violence or theft of property, but for non-violent drug-related crimes such as purchasing or smoking marijuana. It’s been estimated that four times as many young blacks were arrested and incarcerated under these drug laws than white youths, despite it being well-known that white people partake of recreational drugs more often than black people. Note Hillary dismissing Ashley’s questions in that video, and how the young woman ended up escorted out for her confrontational questions (after spending $500 to attend! For that, was she supposed to just listen and not be heard?).


Hmmm, I wonder if Ashley Williams would be one of those black voters who are quick to endorse the woman who endorsed this legislation. Or how about the Latino activists telling Hillary she isn’t welcome for all of her many atrocities during her speech recorded in this video? I see no great love for Hillary there among minority activists.


Hillary Clinton going military

“My major regret is that I couldn’t be there taking pot shots at those silly little Syrians myself! I’ll have to spend another 48 hours straight playing  Call of Duty  and  Full Auto  to get me out of this melancholy mood…”




With all of this evidence made clear, I would like to respectfully ask all Hillary supporters to take a hard, objective look at this evidence, and at the same time, to take a hard, objective look at their reasons for supporting her. While you’re at it, I ask you to please take an equally hard look at why you continue to support the Democrats, and why despite your personal situation — both social and financial — you continue to remain center-of-left in the political spectrum. As a member of the 99%, supporting Hillary and the Democrats in general benefits you in no way whatsoever, regardless of your gender, race, or job.
If you’re of feminist leanings, consider the true equality for women that would result if we achieved the eco-socialist objectives fought for by the Green Party and various smaller socialist organizations in the U.S.

If you simply want to better your situation in a material sense, then your continued support for one of the two major parties of capitalism are going to leave you exactly in the situation you and millions of your fellow 99% are in, and endanger those of the “middle class” into ending up in precisely the same situation during when the next capitalist economic crisis strikes, and President Hillary Clinton (or one of her successors) spends billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the multi-billionaire culprits — just as Obama did with the bankers in 2008.

If you are suffering from health problems and worry about how you’re going to pay for it, then consider how Hillary callously boasted during her sparring with Bernie Sanders (who has now capitulated to her) that it’s improper to have a  “theoretical debate” about universal health care, since it’s something that will “never, ever come to pass” in the U.S… that is, if she and her fellow Democrats and centrists in Washington have anything to say about it.  How is this benefiting you as a member of the 99%, who is going to have to pay out the arse for expensive health insurance and pharmaceuticals to even hope to partially cover any medical expenses you may incur? And how does this make Hillary even remotely a decent person who is in any way capable of looking beyond the perspective of Wall Street?

If you actually want to see terrorism and the cycle of violence plaguing the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western world finally end; and, if you should also happen to care about the lives of innocent families in the Middle East who routinely see their homes and family members blown to bits by U.S. drones as a result of the government’s present policy of perpetual war and a capitalist system which thrives on war profiteering, then you need to realize that an inveterate war-monger like Hillary Clinton and her fellow centrist Democrats are going to continue with these policies and the general militarization of our culture and social mindset that is the main source of terrorist spree killings (sorry, but it’s not the mere availability of guns alone which causes the problem! The typical, emotionally driven fear of guns by Democrats — so long as they are in the hands of civilians, that is — are both hypocritical and ineffective considering the militarization and pro-violence mentality which so many Democratic politicians gleefully support when it’s soldiers abroad and police officers on our own streets literally taking the shots).

Consider all of the following. Hillary and company are going to continue committing numerous war crimes in your name, and continue to spend 57 cents of every single tax dollar on the Pentagon to fight numerous wars that will in no way benefit the 99% at home. Now please ask yourselves the following questions:

What is going to happen as a result of her continued baiting of Russia and China? What is her continued support for Israel and its war crimes against the Palestinians going to mean for the U.S.’s standing in the world? Do you seriously believe that Hillary will cease supporting the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, which a lot of evidence suggests is the true supplier and financier of most fundamentalist Middle Eastern terrorist groups? Do you seriously think she is going to reverse Obama’s blocking of the 9/11 families suing Saudi Arabia for its complicity in the 9/11 tragedy? (And you gotta love his business-oriented rationale for opposing this legislation! And how it will “open the doors” to the many foreigners who lost family and property to the U.S. government’s drones from suing the U.S.! Who wants to leave themselves open to the consequences for their actions, right, Mr. President?) How can you possibly argue that those who cover for terrorist-supporters for what amount to business and P.R. reasons, and falsely blame and attack sovereign nations who had nothing to do with it for similar business reasons (it’s all about the oil and establishing oppressive regimes friendly to U.S. corporate interests!), are “not the monsters some people claim they are”?

Seriously, why do you give that much moral deference to those who have sizable political and economic power over and above the 99% of us who do not? Would you think as highly of your fellow labor class neighbor if he blew up a tenement full of innocent people to get maybe one or two vicious drug dealers? Conversely, would you call the police on any of your working class neighbors and have them harshly incarcerated and indicted simply for smoking a joint? Would you trust a neighbor who was constantly caught lying to house-sit for you when you were away? How much respect would you have for a fellow 99 percenter neighbor who paid a bunch of thugs to slowly beat and torture someone who refused to do business with them to death, and ended the whole thing by shoving a sharpened blade up their rectum? Would someone who was commander-in-chief of the U.S. military that did such things be more  or less  of a threat than one of these hypothetical working class neighbors who did the same thing?

I respectfully ask everyone who supports Hillary and bothers to read this blog to reflect on the above questions and seriously think about them. If you fancy yourself a true progressive, I ask you to reflect on why you continue to be loyal to this economic system and one of the two parties who continue to represent the interests of its small handful of beneficiaries (and that’s not  you, my fellow 99 percenters!). Finally, ask yourself this: how does being a centrist benefit you in any way, shape, or form?

And in closing, considering all of the above, why not support constituents of a third party who truly represent the 99%, and actually supports fundamental change in the structure of the economy that are geared towards ending rather than perpetuating the economic equality which is the source of all the major problems in human civilization, including those making your own life so difficult? Think about it, people, the next time you give Hillary, or any other Democrat, such a firm defense.  I also ask those who choose to wash their hands of the entire political process and vote for  no one at all  to likewise consider these important questions.


Hillary Clinton doing the LOL

Hillary: “Bwah-ha-hah!” 

Off-panel commentator: “Okay, okay, Hillary, I won’t bring up universal health care again. But you will cancel this $180,000 of college debt I incurred to become a journalist, right?” 

Hillary: “BWAH-HAH-HAAHH!” 

Off-panel commentator: “Okay, alright, I’ll get back to the subject of improving drone technology…” 


Review — “Captain America: Civil War” is Many Levels Above Awesome! (Spoiler Free!)

Captain America - Civil War - poster03
I do not exaggerate in the least when I say this was absolutely the most awesome super-hero movie I have ever  seen! Imagine the Captain America movie you always wanted to see, the Iron Man movie you always wanted to see, and the Avengers movie you always wanted to see rolled into a single  two and a half hour film, and you will have a very good idea of what you get here! The Russo Brothers are the best hands that this film could have been left in, and I can hardly wait to see their upcoming 2-part Avengers: Infinity, which is pretty much guaranteed to be epic.
No movie is without flaws, but this one had, IMO, the most minimal flaws of any of the Marvel movies thus far, and not one of the Marvel films released to date has been a total suck-fest. This movie had more heroes in it by far than either of the two Avengers films helmed by Joss Whedon, yet not a single one of these characters were neglected by the script. Every actor shined in their respective roles! Moreover, problems with pacing were close to non-existent in this film, despite some that plagued Whedon’s Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Chadwick Boseman was an amazing Black Panther and Tom Holland gave us a great Spider-Man (a very  worthy successor to both Tobey McGuire and Andrew Garfield! Nevertheless, I still want a film with the Miles Morales version of Spider-Man!). Both of them were given sufficient screen time to establish them as characters and to encourage a good emotional investment by the audience. Because of this film, their upcoming solo movies are all but guaranteed to be hits!
The conflict that split the Avengers into Team Captain America and Team Iron Man was very logical, and very, very heart-wrenching, leading to a finale that had both a huge emotional impact on me and also brought us a major and very tragic revelation about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Let’s just say that nothing can ever be completely right between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark again once this revelation was made. The plot was well-delineated, and didn’t simply serve as a series of filler exposition designed to be nothing more than excuses to get the heroes fighting. Both sides had their view well represented, and no matter what team you side with ideologically, I think most viewers will end up sympathizing with both to some extent.
Captain America - Civil War - Team Cap01
Team Captain America rushes towards the most epic super-hero battle featured on the big screen to date!
Also, not only does Robert Downey Jr. once again play a stellar and memorable Tony Stark, he was making no idle claim when he said in interviews that this film is pretty much “Iron Man 4” as much as it’s “Captain America 3.” Those clamoring for a fourth Iron Man film absolutely needs  to see this one, as the personal life of Tony Stark is affected in major ways here and this is as much his film as it is Captain America’s. As for Chris Evans, he does another glorious job as the hero who wears and personifies Old Glory. Both complimented each other on screen as friends who felt forced to oppose the other based on their respective beliefs and principles going in the opposite direction. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the revelation which comes along towards the end of the movie results in a very heated and more than slightly brutal slug-fest between Iron Man on one side and Cap and Winter Soldier on the other for the awesome but tragic climactic sequence that no viewer with the capacity to feel emotion will soon forget.
Not only did we get what may well be the best special effects and action sequences of any super-hero film, but the script was absolutely stellar. This movie proves that it’s entirely possible to juggle numerous characters together and provide an unending number of spectacular action and effects sequences while also crafting a good, well-written, emotional story that is simultaneously issue-driven and character-driven. And as one may expect based on the previous two Captain America films, this one is filled with relevant political commentary that makes it an important movie for this time period. Future generations of historians, philosophers, and fanboys will have a veritable field day analyzing and deconstructing this film.And I totally cannot wait to see my friend and colleague Derrick Ferguson do so on his great movie review blog The Ferguson Theater! (Update: he just did! Woohoo! And his guest reviewer Sean E. Ali did his own great review a week earlier! Another woohoo!)
Captain America - Civil War - Team Iron Man01
Team Iron Man confronts the opposing camp. Friendships and even deeper relationships, along with the airport, are about to crumble with this rumble.
I should note that the version of Baron Zemo as the main villain in this film is a rather drastic re-interpretation of the classic foe from Captain America rogue’s gallery. His long career in the comic books always depicted Helmut Zemo as the brilliant but twisted son of Nazi scientist Baron Heinrich Zemo, who was second only to the Red Skull as Cap’s perennial nemesis during World War II. The degree of this change was comparable to how much the version of the Mandarin we got in Iron Man 3  was a dramatic departure from the comic book version of one of Mr. Stark’s greatest foes. However, as controversial as the re-imagining of the Mandarin was for the MCU, I think the change in Zemo was quite interesting, and this version was no less deadly and destructive to Cap’s life on all levels than the comic book version. Others may not agree with me, but I do not think this change will spoil the film for too many diehard Cap aficionados. Zemo’s influence has a direct bearing on what causes the Civil War in the MCU, and it was in no way forced or extraneous.
I won’t mention much about Crossbones here, except to say he does get a very good battle sequence against Cap and the Black Widow early in the film. I was slightly disappointed in how that battle concluded, but it does have a very significant part in setting the main event of the plot into motion. Considering what followed this sequence, however, I was more than willing to overlook that disappointment, as it’s totally overshadowed by the epic events and memorable character interactions that follow.
Captain America - Civil War - Spider-Man01
“Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, at your hearts — along with the rest of your viscera — out! I bet you guys didn’t even have  a Captain America in your  universes! Hah!”
I want to end this review by pointing out that the protracted battle sequence between the two opposing Avengers camps at the airport was the most incredible and entertaining battle you have ever seen in a super-hero film to date! Every member of both sides gets in some cool shots and accompanying one-liners, and you see practically everyone on each side slug it out solo for a moment with someone from the other side. As just the tip of the iceberg, we have sequences during the epic airport melee where Captain America goes one-on-one with Spider-Man; Hawkeye goes one-on-one with the Black Widow; the Black Panther gets in some mano-a-mano throwdowns with both Captain America and the Winter Soldier, etc. Not only that, but we also have group and tactically coordinated maneuvers between various sets of the combatants that rival the coolness and complexity you will see in the comic book pages! And just wait until you see what Ant-Man does! I don’t want to spoil it, but I shouted and cheered the moment I saw it! If you happen to see this film in a crowded theater, expect to hear the entire facility resonate with cheers and claps when this happens! (What occurs has been mentioned in speculation various places online already, but I’m still not going to spoil it here! Ha!!)
Captain America - Civil War - Iron Man vs. Bucky01
Things will never be the same again as the Winter Soldier’s sordid past catches up with him in a majorly tragic way.
Keep in mind that like past Marvel films by Marvel Studios, there are two important 30 second Easter Egg sequences after the main film ends; one in the middle of the end credits, the other immediately following the conclusion of the scroll. The second one sets up a certain eagerly awaited solo hero film, and is worth sitting the extra minutes for.
Captain America - Civil War - Giant-Man01
If you happen to be a fellow super-hero fan, by all means see this movie! Not in a few weeks, but ASAP!! This is the stuff that many comic book fans spent many hours dreaming about seeing “someday.” Thanks to Disney, Marvel Studios, and the Russo Brothers, that “someday” is NOW! It’s my strong opinion that this flick is more than worth paying to see on the big screen rather than waiting until it comes to video or pay-for-view, as many have suggested to me was the best option for Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Captain America - Civil War poster02

An Amazing Tribute from a Fellow Monster Kid

When I wrote the tribute to my dad in February, never in my worst nightmares did I think I would be doing the same less than two months later for my wife Geri. As all of you know, she passed away suddenly on March 19. Nothing I can say here is going to come close […]

via Special Tribute to My Wife, Geri Chamberlain — Monster Movie Kid

America’s Repeated Gun-Related Killing Sprees Are Not Primarily About Availability of Guns

Guns that were purchased by undercover police officers are displayed during a news conference in New York, Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010. District attorney Cyrus Vance announced the indictment of three people on illegal gun sales after a long-term investigation into firearms trafficking by the defendants. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

The Big Distraction
Sure enough, President Obama’s response to the most recent spree killing that ensued earlier today (circa October 1, 2015) at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College is focusing his conversation entirely on the gun issue, just as I earlier predicted on one of my Facebook posts that regularly annoy both those who hate political posts on that social network and the more patriotically correct amongst my friends there.  I hardly deserve any back-patting for that prediction coming true, as anyone who possesses even a minor familiarity with politicking could have done the same.

The President also predictably cited highly controversial statistics that claim states with stricter gun control laws have less homicides by firearms, totally ignoring the fact that his current home town of Washington, D.C. has among the strictist laws against guns in the nation, yet among the highest degree of gun-related homicides in the country. In fact, as shown in this mainstream news article from three months ago, gun-related crimes in the District of Columbia are up nearly 20% from the previous year. These articles need to be cited because too many people are apt to simply believe the President’s statements simply because he is the one who says them, despite the fact that we should all be well aware what slick con men politicians have to be in order to thrive in Congress or the White House.

I’m the first to admit that there are numerous studies on the effectiveness of stringent gun control laws in obviating incidents of gun-related violence and crimes that contradict each other, but that doesn’t change the fact that many states or other areas (like the District of Columbia) with very heavy gun control laws still have lots of gun violence and crimes perpetrated with guns. Note what is said here in this comprehensive study on the issue:

When it comes to the question of gun violence, and how it correlates with gun control laws on a state-by-state basis, the answer at first blush seems very simple: More gun laws correlate with less gun violence. However, as any statistician would say, correlation is not causality, and indeed, the correlation is far from exact. For instance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, while much gun violence is concentrated in gun friendly states (Arizona and Alaska being prime examples), a good chunk of it also takes place in areas that restrict gun ownership, like the District of Columbia [emphasis mine].

Given this inexact (though suggestive) correlation, other experts have attempted to look at what factors within each of these states correlate most strongly with gun violence. The answer, according to at least one — Richard Florida of the Martin Prosperity Institute — is that partisan identification, number of college graduates, poverty, number of working class residents and the number of weapons present in local high schools are the strongest predictors of gun violence [emphasis mine].

Naturally enough, Florida’s analysis is one of the more charitable. Ideologically liberal institutions like the Center for American Progress have simply pounced on the correlation between lax gun laws and increased gun violence to try to prove their points, ignoring the contrary evidence. Other groups, such as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, prefer to simply harp on the large numbers of fatalities that occur each year associated with guns.

By all means note the links within the quotations for further evidence that President Obama’s statements are highly problematic, not to mention highly self-serving. I fully understand that many of my fellow progressives support strong gun control laws, and many are not against the total banning of firearms altogether. I understand why they feel as they do, but I ask them to ponder the questions I’m now presenting here before giving into the emotional temptation to “harp on” the gun issue to the near-exclusion of anything else.

The main reason our esteemed emporer–er, leader–will focus so exclusively on the gun issue is to distract the 99% from a lot of hard questions we need to ask about this country, such as how its militaristic value systems combine with its extremely competitive dog-eat-dog economic system to create numerous desperate and mentally ill misfits who become encouraged to respond in exactly the same fashion as the President responds to every country in the Middle East that refuses to do business with him his way. He’s always happy to overlook despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, one of the worst in that part of the world, if they’re happy to do business his way, of course. And let’s not overlook the fact that Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi and so were most of the other participants in the 9/11 terrorist incident (not a single one of them were Iraqi). I’m not saying that Saudi Arabian citizens in general are any worse than any group of people from any other nation, so please do not misquote me here; I am talking about the Saudi Arabian ruling class  here, who are probably worse than the tyrants of any Middle Eastern regime the U.S. government is currently dropping bombs on.
“That’s my despot!”

Would President Obama agree to cut back on the number of drones, cluster bombs, and heavily armed troop deployments that are his knee-jerk reaction to every nation he deems “the enemy”? Would he encourage the citizenry of his country to stop cheerleading the military and declaring them heroes every time a school, hospital, or wedding filled with innocent people are caught in the crossfire of his bombing raids and illegal occupations; or the financial and military aid he regularly gives to despotic regimes that cooperate with the will of the American 1%? Has he opposed the heavy militarization of the city police forces? These are all rhetorical questions, by the way.

Yet he acts in bafflement and outrage whenever a citizen is pushed over the deep end by the policies and value systems he upholds and shamelessly represents when they with the rage fueled by a severe mental breakdown by picking up a gun and doing to those whom they consider “the enemy,” without being concerned about innocents who become “collateral damage” in the process.  Instead, the President hypocritically takes this latest tragedy as an opportunity to distract from all these hard questions by manipulating the powerful emotions centered around the gun issue.

He also said that many other First World countries have their share of mentally ill people, but do not routinely go on these killing sprees, all because (he contends) they lack access to guns. Plain and simple. What he doesn’t talk about is how the police in these other First World nations likewise do not regularly carry guns except under special circumstances. Further, the media and culture at large in these other nations do not support or tolerate, let alone glorify, a bloated military or militaristic way of thinking and dealing with perceived problems in the first place. They are likewise capitalist nations, of course, but they are considerably more favorable of social democratic policies that mitigate the wealth disparities that the American government is more than happy to escalate with one of the most cruelly adversarial attitudes towards its working class than any other nation. No other First World nation comes close to America in this century when it comes to military occupations, the heavy militarization of police, and wealth disparity between the haves and have nots.
militarized police
An occupied neighborhood in Baghdad? Nope, just a group of Ferguson police doing their thing. A great inspiration for those who believe assault weapons go a long way towards solving petty problems.

Nor is any other culture nearly as quick to reject or socially penalize those who do not strictly adhere to a specific way of thinking, and demand that everyone be willing to adhere to a heavily standardized form of education and system of work of which it’s highly unrealistic to expect everyone to be suited for. Our system is all about creating winners and losers, and the cruel rejection of the many losers who are simply not suited to the single standard imposed upon all is bound to cause many of them to snap, and some will respond precisely as our militarized culture teaches us to respond. This adds a heavy dose of dark irony to these tragedies, and seems to underscore Robert Kennedy’s statement that “every country gets the type of criminal it deserves.”

Let’s start asking these important questions and not get distracted yet again by duplicitous politicians hoping to exploit the gun issue by encouraging us to focus solely upon that. I think we owe it to all past and future victims of these horrific crimes to be completely honest about the crux of these problems, and not simply focus on one of the symptoms.

A young man whom I strongly hope does not  take inspiration from America’s military and police forces. This for the sake of himself, the many intolerant peers who regularly use him as an emotional venting post, and any random innocents who may be in their vicinity if he should ever snap.