Occupado

Occupado

While I stand in theory with those who are occupying wallstreet in the many states, I do have to speak ill of a few things. First off, I noticed that when the news interviews a random protester, they're faced with a tough choice. Specifically when asked if they feel capitalism isn't a equitable economic system, what they want to replace capitalism with? At that moment you can sort of see it in the hearts, minds and eyes of all the people around them. "Don't say it bro, don't say it!" they proclaim as the guy on camera just fumbles along in front of the Fox news camera. But you and I both know that they're trying to prevent people from saying the word socialism to any media.



To do so would label the occupy movement as communist socialist and we all know how much Americans hate socialism. What with your medicare and social security and what not. Besides that, these folks are far from socialist. They are at best liberals. Look at this article talking about if Liberals should support the OWS movement.

How should liberals feel about Occupy Wall Street? If you post here and you think of yourself as a liberals, then you have undoubtedly been grappling with that question in recent weeks. At first blush, it would be difficult not to cheer the protesters who have descended on lower Manhattan—and are massing in other cities across the United States—because they have chosen a deserving target. Wall Street should be protested. Its resistance to needed regulations that would stabilize the U.S. economy is shameful. And, insofar as it has long opposed appropriate levels of government spending and taxation, it has helped to create a society that does a deeply flawed job of providing for its most vulnerable, educating its young, and guaranteeing economic opportunity for all.

But, to draw on the old cliché, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Just because Liberals are frustrated with Wall Street does not mean that we should automatically find common cause with a group of people who are protesting Wall Street. Indeed, one of the first obligations of Liberals is skepticism—of governments, of arguments, and of movements. And so it is important to look at what Occupy Wall Street actually believes and then to ask two, related questions: Is their rhetoric liberalist, or at least a close cousin of liberals? And is this movement helpful to the achievement of liberal aims?

One of the core differences between Liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression. “[In] 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV and films and in novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel,” Zizek declared. “This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here, we don’t think of prohibition. Because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.” This is not a statement of Liberals values; moreover, it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to Liberals, who do not in any way seek the end of capitalism.

Zizek is not alone. His statement is typical of the anti-capitalist, almost utopian arguments that one hears coming from these protesters. A recent debate about whether to allow Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon, to speak to Occupy Atlanta was captured on video and ended up on YouTube. As Lewis looked on, arguments on both sides were bandied about. “The point of this general assembly is to kick-start a democratic process in which no singular human being is inherently more valuable than any other human being,” argued one protester. Ultimately, because no “consensus” could be reached, Lewis was turned away. Yes, like the Zizek speech, this was just one data point. But surely it was an indication that liberals skepticism about this movement is not unwarranted.

And it is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to Liberals. “We speak as one,” Occupy Wall Street stated in its first communiqué, from September 19. “All of our decisions, from our choices to march on Wall Street to our decision to camp at One Liberty Plaza were decided through a consensus process by the group, for the group.” The air of group-think is only heightened by a technique called the “human microphone” that has become something of a signature for the protesters. When someone speaks, he or she pauses every few words and the crowd repeats what the person has just said in unison. The idea was apparently logistical—to project speeches across a wide area—but the effect when captured on video is genuinely creepy.

These are not just substantive complaints. They also beg the strategic question of whether the protesters will help or hurt the cause of Liberals. After all, even if the protesters are not liberals themselves, isn’t it possible that they could play a constructive role in forcing Americans to pay attention to important issues such as inequality and crony capitalism? Perhaps. But we are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought.

The Dodd-Frank legislation is currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism? Why yes, let's pin our liberal hopes and dreams on a piece of legislation that doesn't change the status quo one bit. Then again, what else could you pin a liberal hope on. That's sort of the point. Perhaps I'll be happy pinning my hopes on these movements taking note of what Greece does.

From the OWS movement that's all I seem to be seeing. A big mass of liberals bouncing off each other chaotically like gas molecules in an enclosed system, begging, PLEADING for the merciful trot to infiltrate and show them the way...

Just look at this report from Boston about the movement and their reaction to the homeless. You know, those people who aren't even good enough to be counted as the 99%

Another issue that has grown in importance as the occupation has grown is that of what to do with the homeless people who are attracted to Dewey Square by our presence.

As the occupation strives to represent the 99%, their presence has made for a really difficult juxtaposition. On one hand, we don't want to turn anyone away. On the other hand, many are homeless for very specific reasons – mental health and substance abuse issues being two major ones.

This has lead to the group attempting to walk a knife blade on this issue – allowing them access to our food and supplies, but only allowing the ones with true medical conditions allowed to stay in the camp. Such interactions and decisions have lead to a variety of notable situations.

For instance, while the camp has a strict no drugs or alcohol policy, displaced people have stumbled on Dewey square already under the influence. Leading to this* widely disseminated vomiting incident, a heroin overdose, and several medical emergencies.

Additionally, the homeless we have allowed to stay in camp are disabled in various ways and so have a difficult time moving around. This has lead to them relieving themselves right next to their tent.

As they have been positioned adjacent to the medical tent, this has caused a general urine odor emanating from the area and unsanitary conditions nearby (obviously not what one would consider ideal for any medical facility).

How dare those homeless try to come to the 99%'s turf. Look at this first hand account....

It was a rough night on Dewey Square.

A group of homeless people have attached themselves to Occupy Boston, and its pillows, blankets and surplus tents.

My tent happened to be very close to them.

So I work up at 3 a.m. to a horrible sound.

Someone was outside my tent, throwing up!

My mind started to spin.

It went from, “Would the wharf rats come over here? And “Is my tent rat-repellent?” to “Why am I here, with a $1,000 computer at my feet?”

Dayllight never looked so good!

Yeah! Smelly homeless people? Pfft. Not in *MY* 99 percent! Which I guess is the real beef I have with the group. You essentially walk on the street and say words while holding up your sign and suddenly it's like you feel as if you did something of importance before you go home and log onto Facebook to talk about what you accomplished.

When really it amounts to nothing more than trolling Wallstreet hot shots. Which if you saw from the Chicago board of trade, they can troll like the best of them right back.



Which was as brilliant as when Marie Antoinette put up the [LET][THEM][EAT][CAKE] posters in the windows of Versailles. Which I have to say is getting a bit more crazy in that eventually the people will rise above. But at the same time the police force will do exactly the same as well.

That's why there's a De-escalation Guide

Posted on September 30th, 2011 by Bob inNo comments

• When confronted by law enforcement or security, it is absolutely critical to remain calm, and to not escalate tense situations. Sometimes, that’s not as easy as it looks. This handy guidebookthing is here to help you. Read it, memorize it, love it. This is your bible for when things get tense.
  
• Back off! Literally. Take at least one to two steps back, to show you are not being aggressive.
  
• Take a deep breath. This is not for screaming. This is to make you pause before saying something in anger.
  
• Do take your hands out, in clear view, in front of you, showing you are not holding a weapon. Not in your pockets.
  
• Do not point, shake your finger, make fists. These are aggressive and threatening. Bad idea.
  
• Do not turn your back at any time. This makes it look like you are ignoring them. Not cool, bro.
  
• Do apologize. Even if you aren’t in the wrong, apologize. This can go a long way to de-escalating the situation.
  
• Do not be defensive or judgmental. Nobody is automatically in the wrong.
  
• Do not accuse or threaten. If you do this, rest assured, you are in for a world of trouble.
  
• Do not yell or scream. Raise your voice CALMLY if you need to do so to be heard.
  
• Do respond calmly to questions, no matter how rude the other person is.
  
• Do empathize with feelings even if you disagree with the behavior. Cops have it rough too.
  
• Do not argue or try to sway them to your side. We’re de-escalating here, it’s not the Oslo Accords.
  
• Do listen to what the other person is saying. Don’t just dismiss it or tune it out. Seriously. Listen.
  
• Do acknowledge the other person’s concerns. You’d expect them to acknowledge yours – so you better do the same.

So you know, if someone was to even touch or paint graffiti on that bull, the cops would beat them to death right there like a divine sacrifice to the gods of capital while everyone looks on and cheers hoping it will be enough to bring the DOW back up.



Not to mention that it will be a great moment for television news history when someone does something to that bull and the police shoot them, they will be able to air the headline "When you mess with the bull you get the horns"

Some of the S.F. protesters were very adamant defending the cops who showed up in riot gear to destroy the camp last night.

"They're just doing their jobs guys!! They're on our side, honest!! You just wait!"

I just don't understand how anyone can possibly think this way yet still be angsty enough to turn out to a protest to begin with. Maybe my hope is that some real agitators will show to these lily-white college students how its done with maybe a moltov cocktail or some gas mask.



But not everywhere is reacting the same to the 99% as was faced with many cities getting their tents raided. In Los Angeles it's a very funny situation. In that apparently the LA city council is going to end up endorsing the occupy L.A. folks.

Which I'm guessing shouldn't be something to rave about since it could just be them trying to coopt them. Let's just break down what happened. Bill Rosendahl tore ass to break away from the city council when this happened just to get before the cameras in the protest. He is also best known for having been elected by Venice activists then getting the po-po to crack down on the RV's of homeless folk littering his district.



Then there's Eric Garcetti. He's another council member who couldn't get in front of the cameras quick enough. he is a dynasty of do-nothing democrats who want to run for higher office. Eric Garcetti can kiss my ass.

Just look at how Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians elsewhere are handling this situation:

Mayor Bloomberg Claims ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protesters Are Targeting Bankers Who ‘Are Struggling To Make Ends Meet’

This morning, while on local radio host John Gambling’s show, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was askedabout the demonstrations on Wall Street. Bloomberg condemned the protests, claiming that the protesters are targeting people who making “$40-50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet.” He then went on to say people are focusing too much on the causes of the financial crisis and that we need to be nicer to the banking industry so that it starts lending again. He concluded by saying that we are “blaming the wrong people” by “blaming the banks” for the recession:

Ha! That has got to be the funniest shit possible. Hey guys, this protest is costing the cops too much money. Maybe it's time to wind this mofo down.



All of this just leads to the protecting of capitalism..

Hundreds of cops, some on horsebacks, are now protecting Wall Street 24 hours a day. At Bowling Green Park, they have also blocked access to the Merryll Lynch bull. To be warmed by the methane gas of a healthy market, no doubt, a group of New York’s Finest gathered near their sacred bovine’s digestive exit, just below its up-lashing tail.

“They’re all guarding the bull’s asshole,” I said to this middle aged black woman standing across the street.

“Yeah, they’re all guarding the bullshit!” She laughed.

shoot them all, shoot them all,
shoot all the bourgeois reactionary swine
shoot all the bosses and their hangers-on
shoot all the dems and republican scum
'cause we're saying goodbye to them all
as we put their backs to the wall...



But you know this group isn't going to do any of that. They will not get uppity and they will lay down when the police come for them. I guess I should just ask what the harm is in people having a big anti-capitalism-themed block party.

Because maybe I'm being too harsh. There's really a lot of people there with a massive amount of debt, no career prospects, poverty, etc. and maybe it would be good of me to think of them as people that need help and direction rather than contempt for being silly and disorganized and not nearly Marxist enough.

Uniforms

Uniforms

With school already back in full session and the kids already in the groove of things, it's easy to look past the easy questions, but I guess I just had to wonder about one thing that I never got to ask about - Should kids just wear a uniform to school?

Growing up in an all catholic high school upbringing you would think that I would say hell to the no. I must have hated wearing the same thing over and over again day in and day out, right? Welp, you would be wrong.

I think people probably should wear uniforms to school as it helps eliminate the visibility of class differences to a degree and also curtails the development of gross bourgeois individualism. Besides, why shouldn't kids learn about uniforms at a young age? It helps prepare them for life when they have to wear their work uniform day in and day out.

In fact, the only thing I can say against uniforms is that they're sold by monopoly companies and individual thought and self expression aren't necessarily bourgeois. Even though you can show class warfare through the use of someone wearing some expensive clothing they got from the mall opposed to someone else buying shit from Ross.

But hey, maybe the liberal in me prefers disguising class differences than actually bringing them to consciousness. Besides, children should probably go to religious schools because it makes them better people... Well, not catholic schools. Those suck, but maybe one of those new age Californication WASP type of schools. My catholic school sucked entirely but the uniform was the least of my concern.

I've had a uniform all my life. In school it was khakis and a beige shirt. Out of school it has been Jeans and a witty/comical shirt. All of which had converse involved. So clearly I'm okay with the same ol' same ol' day in and day out.

Maybe we should just give everyone a burlap sack and the problem will be solved. Though then the nations problem of burlap sack shortage will hit an all time high. Though I'm sure it won't be a problem since there will likely be a surplus of discards from the potato mines. So there, problem solved on the supply and thus nobody will ever want for a uniform again.

If anything, a uniform would be a great thing for schools. Considering that public schools these days aren't doing much more than preparing you for gen pop in minimum security prison

Let Women Die Act of 2011

Let Women Die Act of 2011

So this shit actually passed. Fuck this terrible nation.

Yesterday the GOP-led House of Representatives, with the blessings and encouragement of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups such as the Family Research Council, passed a bill in a vote of 251 to 172 that would, among other things, allow doctors and hospitals to "exercise their conscience" by letting pregnant women facing emergency medical conditions die.

Yes. Die.

This is what the Republicans called the "Protect Life Act." And no, I am not kidding.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is... "a savage assault on women's health."

Fifteen Democrats voted for what women's groups are calling the "Let Women Die" Act. These include anti-choice Congressmen Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (GSW), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Nick Rahall (WVA), Mike Ross (AR), Collin Petersen (MN), and Heath Shuler (D-NC).

"Extremists prevailed today in the House of Representatives," said Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families, "proving again that they are badly out-of-touch with the majority of Americans who want lawmakers to focus on economic recovery, jobs and promoting, rather than restricting, affordable, quality health care ­-- not [on] an extreme, anti-woman agenda."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called passage of the bill yet another reminder of how playing politics with women’s health and privacy is a priority for Speaker John Boehner.

“Americans are facing real challenges, yet House Speaker John Boehner is ignoring the public’s call for Congress to focus on jobs, “said Keenan. “Instead, he is coming up with new ways to give politicians more control over our personal, private decisions. The House’s attacks on women’s freedom and privacy are out of touch with our nation’s values and priorities.”


The bill, H.R. 358, about which we have written extensively before, revives the earlier failed Stupak amendment, which would force health plans to drop comprehensive coverage in state health insurance exchanges, cutting off millions of women from the benefits they receive today and prevent women from paying for health insurance with abortion coverage with their own money.

H.R. 358 contains other provisions revealing complete disregard for women's health and lives. It permits states to enact sweeping refusal laws that would allow health plans to refuse to cover women’s preventive services, including birth control, without cost-sharing — undoing a new protection under health reform supported by 66 percent of Americans. It also codifies and significantly expands an already expansive refusal clause (also known as the Weldon amendment) without any regard for patient rights or protections. Under current law (through the 2004 Weldon amendment), hospitals, health care facilities, and insurance plans can refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. The Weldon amendment has no protections for patients to ensure they have access to care and information in a timely manner. H.R. 358 codifies this unfair and discriminatory provision. H.R. 358 further allows health care entities--hospitals, clinics--to refuse to "participate in" abortion care. This could mean that a hospital employee with no medical training or role in a patient’s treatment decisions could refuse to process bills, handle medical records, or even set up an examination room for a patient seeking abortion care.

And finally, it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her--including an emergency abortion--or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.

Read it again. It is that breathtaking.

As Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) stated during floor debate, had this law been in effect 20 years ago she might not be here, because she was one of those women who needed an emergency abortion to save her life.

But the real lives of real women don't seem to be of great concern to the predominantly white male Congress.

“This bill is a collection of dangerous ideas that will undermine women’s health,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “Most devastating, the bill eliminates protections for patients seeking care in emergency circumstances, and would allow a hospital to deny lifesaving abortion care to a woman, even if a doctor deems it necessary.”

President Obama has said he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk. "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358," said the statement of policy put out by the White House, "because, as previously stated in the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3, the legislation intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today." (Modnote: LOL)

"America’s women and families are counting on the Senate to reject this measure," said Ness of the National Partnership, "and, if necessary, for President Obama to make good on his promise to veto it.”

I will not let you die, ladies.

I just have no words. Clearly the people in control of our country are trying to legalize murdering women. it's pretty much the worse thing possible. Well, not the worse thing. But if you're a woman you probably should be appalled.

The worse is that Obama will pass it against a strong compromise to allow for debt heritage. And people will love him for it. I don't think anyone should read Gawker media, but here's this quote from jezebel:

NC rep Virginia Foxx said:

For my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. Fifty percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those that promote the killing of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madame Speaker.

I.. really have no words to describe my shame in this country. Fuck. I guess woman are only women, but you gotta save the life of the unborn fetus cause there's a chance it'll turn out to be a man...

Soda - Not For Woman Anymore

Soda - Not For Woman Anymore

So an American firm launched a new soft drink containing 10 calories, because apparently men do not think zero-figure diet alternatives are "manly". But to appeal to men, Dr. Pepper made its TEN drink different from Diet Dr. Pepper. It has calories and sugar and will be wrapped in gunmetal gray packaging material.

In short, Dr. Pepper is unveiling a "Manly" Soda.

Skip the beer: Dr Pepper’s new soda, Dr Pepper 10, is “not for women,” according to its new advertisements. The 10-calorie soda isn’t the first diet drink to target men; Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are also aimed at male consumers. But it is the most aggressive: in addition to the slogan, “It’s not for women,” the soda comes in a gunmetal can decorated with bullets; its advertisements include snake wrestlers and laser guns; and on its Facebook page you can visit a digital shooting gallery where you take aim at female products—lipstick, high heels, etc.

Ha! Sorry grandma, You can't have that can of soda. It's just for men! **tosses empty Dr. Pepper 10 can on the floor, explodes like a grenade and a spontaneous football game suddenly breaks out**

I have to admit, I was sort of laughing when I saw the following commercial while watching Spike TV for some reason. But you know, it's a manly network, so fuck it, check it out.



Guess you're just going to have to deal with it, ladies cause I'm going to grab a suitcase full of these and hang out with my bros. Dudes only. We'll drink this all night and be bros together. Maybe even do hug it out, bitches. But it's cool cause we're dudes, fuck yeah! A fuckin' soda made just for guys!! How god damn manly is that?? Just a simple TEN MANLY MOTHER FUCKIN' CALORIES! No more, No less.

And women, you best watch yourself. If you consumed at least 1 of those manly calories, your vagina would grow into a massive throbbing cock and you'd finally get paid an equal pay for equal work.

I probably should show more anger towards the advertisement but then again, Miller Light ads and other beer ads are even more sickeningly disgusting at this whole idea of calling you out on being not a fagot. Beer ads have been doing this for a long time now.



I guess the only difference between Miller and Dr. Pepper is one is more honest about it. But maybe there should be more manly things. How about a manly cooking show for a change:



Over all, I consider manliness to be synonymous with acting like a shithead. Then to even dare suggest that a diet soda can somehow be manly or even take some gender role or gender specification to begin with is like a double whammy of product-flogging insecurity gone to a whole new level.

Though this isn't the first time something like this has come about. Nestle's Yorkie bars were already advertising themselves with the slogan "it's not for girls"



Maybe I'm just confused about the gendering of food as simple as fucking nourishment in our culture. It's all over the place in fast food marketing.



Why yes, reclaim your masculinity with deep-fried chicken, frozen ice-cream treats and sugary sodas. You'll be reincarnated viking warrior in no time!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm starting to get really angry about all this. And if you're like me, you can send your hate to Dr. Pepper here, Or you can be pretty creative with your FUCK YOU to Dr. Pepper and make videos like the following:



Janine browsed through the shelf at the small grocery store on her corner. There it was, again. A cold can of Dr. Pepper 10 in the old refrigerator. She knew the rules. She knew what it meant. She hesitated for a few seconds. Then she took it out, walked quickly towards the cash register and handed the change she had already prepared in her hand. She got outside and walked into the alley. Breaking the seal, she gulped down the tart liquid. She could feel the estrogen draining away. Her chest started to contract and the fat in her cheeks dissipated. She tried to scream but her quiet voice arced from shrill to deep. She plunged her hand down her pants and felt the dangling penis. Today was Day Zero. Things would be different now.

Sexism will exist in marketing forever and ever. It is inherent in capitalism. Though I really have to question her wardrobe choice for said video. I mean, maybe if you didn't want sexism to persist you would choose clothing that wasn't created due to treating women as sexual objects to begin with? Just sayin'.

Though this quest to manliness isn't a new one at all. Even Disney acknowledges it.



Essentially this just has the perfect marketing to it. Guys will try it because it is funny and woman will try it because they are told that it's not for them. Though I'm left wondering on which type of guy this will actually have that effect on. I generally stay away from sodas because of the calories and sugar involved in drinking them but man, if they ever made water for men, I'll be on that shit so fast.

Here's what will end up happening. Many groups will catch wind of this marketing madness, calling for a boycotts, etc. Thereby drawing even more people to pay attention to the new 10 calorie Dr. Pepper and then the advertising will change from the all manly men to the now it's for everyone bullshit. Sales of four loko shot up as soon as people started to die from it. I'll be honest, I bought a couple at that point as well.

I have to wonder why if these marketing campaigns ever worked, why Americans are still on average fatter then most? Oh, I know why - Cause while you're on a diet you choose to drink 10 calorie diet sodas instead of fucking water!

So yeah, Dr. Pepper is fully aware of the negative attention it will get and are inevitably preparing for the fallout, and bounce recovery to boost in sales. Besides that, everyone knows that women only drink Diet Coke anyway. No way they'd want Dr. Pepper to begin with.



On a final note, I hope you all realize that this is just mainly a way to get corn back into the soda of diet purchasers. We put corn in literally everything because we can't grow any other crops besides corn and soybeans.

So at the very least they choose men to sell the new drink with the extra poison to. They could have done some sort of "sugar and spice" bullshit about the added sweetness and tagged it along with a whole "You work hard as a woman, spoil yourself with a Mrs. Pepper while you lounge in your bubble bath" campaign.

Blackwater - Proof Video Games Rot Your Brain

Blackwater - Proof Video Games Rot Your Brain

I'm not the gamer I once was but I do like to keep my ear to the ground on what the kids are playing these days. Now this one sort of surprised me that it was still being made.... wait, no. Let me rephrase that since I should have known better.

But I had assumed that they had abandoned the making of the Black Water game as I hadn't seen or heard anything about it for a while. But then this video surfaced and well, let's just say it's pretty fucked.



It's really amazing that several times in the video it looked like the player gunned down an unarmed civilians - It's a whole new level of realism.. Kicking the door down and shooting a dude who doesn't have a gun right in the face. Yup, that seems like pretty realistic game design on all this.

So what's the word on this?

LOS ANGELES (AP) — In the world of video games, realism reigns supreme, but the makers of a game based on the infamous private security firm Blackwater are intentionally steering clear of it.

There's no blood, the enemies are fictional and civilians can't be killed. With no moral dilemmas in "Blackwater," it's simply a matter of shoot — or be shot.

"It's a game," said Erik Prince, the company's founder. "This is not a training device. This is not a simulator. We're not doing this to teach folks how to conduct military operations in an urban terrain. That's not it at all. This is more along the lines of kids running around their neighborhood playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians."

You know, for the kids... By god, what the fuck.

Pess X to deny allegations.
Press Y to hide in political red tape.
Lobbyism LEVEL 5 - Increased resistance to negative media portrayal.

Reminder, the company changed their name to XE to get rid of the connotations of Blackwater, but now they're just saying fuck it and marketing a game explicitly as Blackwater. Maybe it's just that XE is very hard to make puns with.

I guess it's just that Erik Prince is funding the game and he's not at XE anymore anyway, but he has the rights to the Blackwater name. That and well, I guess they just don't give a fuck.

Keep in mind that a game literally about 50 cent rampaging through the middle east and destroying entire villages without giving a shit even had the foresight to make Blackwater a villain.



But hey, maybe that's the point of all this. Maybe game developers should be actively working towards making a shooter game that makes all the players quit in disgust. 3D Realms understood this when making Duke Nukem Forever.

Maybe if kids have been inundated with children screaming as their guts spill out of their stomach being standard in war games. Otherwise shit like this just make Blackwater a sort of zombie apocalypse survival group that just went horribly wrong.. or right, I guess it depends on your view point on the subject.

In reality, it's probably better off for you to sign up and go over there than play the game at home. Did you know that more people died on America's roads than in Iraq? This is all things that your local recruiter will tell you! Trust them, why would they lie to you?

It just makes me sad. Partially because the game glorifies this truly criminal gun for hire group, but maybe also because a game like this could only be realistic enough if you actually portrayed Blackwater as the people they really are. You know, the type to rape a woman and lock her in a shipping container and when she calls for help with her cellphone, you ban employees from having cellphones. All this while dozens of republcan senators try to pass a bill legalizing rape of your fellow employees..

The Reasons Obama Should Be Relected

The Reasons Obama Should Be Relected

There is none. I mean, what did you expect? You're talking to me. Okay, maybe there's the reason that if you don't re-elect this good for nothing broken promises president, then the republicans would have their man in there and things could get a whole lot worse... maybe.

Anyhow, there's some people out there who in an effort to show you how awesome of a president Obama is, put up a list of things to be proud of the leader;

President Obama's approval rating is at an all-time low as concerns for his re-election grow. With a bad economy and an even worse job market, morale in the “Yes We Can” believers has taken a big hit in the past three years.

Even though there are now more women serving on the Supreme Court than at any point in its history, August’s unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent. Osama Bin Laden may be captured and deceased but the U.S credit rating has been downgraded from its AAA status for the first time since it was first issued in 1917. And even though Obama just announced a new initiative to get veterans back to work, foreclosures are still on a wild roller-coaster ride placing families into unimaginable situations.

While there are probably 40 more reasons why Obama shouldn’t be re-elected, here are 40 more why he should.

Obama’s top 40 accomplishments during his presidency:

1. Authorized the housing resucue plan and new FHA residential housing guarantees.
2. Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan – 1/3 in tax cuts for working-class families; 1/3 to states for infrastructure projects; 1/3 to states to prevent the layoffs of police officers, teachers, etc., at risk of losing their jobs because of state budget shortfalls.
3. Instituted a new rule allowing the public to meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (in as quickly as one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying.
4. Authorized the “Cash for Clunkers” program that stimulated auto sales and removed old, inefficient, polluting cars from the road.
5. Convened a “jobs summit” to bring experts together to develop ideas for creating jobs.
6.Authorized the federal government to make more loans available to small businesses and ordered lower rates for federal loans to small businesses.
7. In November 2009, Obama extended unemployment benefits for one million workers.
8.Signed historic Wall Street reform bill – Designed to re-regulate and end abusive practices and promote consumer protections.
9. Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women (Lilly Ledbetter Bill).
10.Signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (2010) - To curb wasteful spending.
11. Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which provides small tax cuts for 95% of “working families” - The tax cuts were not as big as was suggested during the 2008 campaign.
12. Reduced taxes for some small businesses to stimulate the economic recovery.
13.Extended the Home Buyers Credit for first-time home buyers.
14. Overturned the Bush-era practice of not listing certain federal programs in the federal budget – Bush did this (so did Reagan) in an effort to hide programs and make the budget look smaller; such “off budget” items are now included in the annual budget.
15. Ordered the Pentagon to cover expenses of families of fallen soldiers if they wish to be on site when the body arrives back in the US.
16.Working to increase pay and benefits for military personnel.
17. Fulfilled campaign promise to have combat troops (90,000) out of Iraq by August 31, 2010.
18. Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina, to the Supreme Court.
19. Appointed a diverse Cabinet and diverse White House staff.
20.Spoke at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization.
21. Signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation that includes acts of violence against gays under the list of federal hate crimes.
22. Allowed the State Department of offer same-sex benefits for employees.
23. After eight years of neglect, the Justice Department and EEOC are again enforcing employment discrimination laws.
24. Increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
25.Programs to assist Spanish speakers with the US Census.
26. Increased funding available for student loans.
27. Expanded the national youth service program.
28. Initiated a “Race to the Top” competitive federal grant program for states who develop innovative policies.
29. Proposed that the Pentagon repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; placed a “freeze” on current efforts to remove alleged homosexuals from the military.
30.Increased investment in technologies for schools/education.
31. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness.
32. FEMA once again reports directly to the president – Bush removed FEMA (prior to the Hurricane Katrina disaster) from this status.
33. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office.
34. Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays.
35. Reversed some of the Bush-era restrictions that prevented Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical firms for cheaper drugs, allowing government to again competitively bid.
36. Individuals living at or below the poverty line were eligible for healthcare under Medicaid, but by 2014 individuals/families living slightly above (making up to $14,404/$29,327) the poverty line will also be eligible for benefits.
37. Individuals/families making less than $43,320/$88,200 per year will qualify for government subsidies to help purchase health insurance.
38. Families can keep their children in college on their healthcare plans through age 26.
39.Childhood Obesity Act (spearheaded by Michelle Obama) – purposed to subsidize free meals in low-income areas to ensure that children receive well-balanced and nutritious school meals; and also to provide free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million low-income children; and ultimately reduce childhood obesity.
40. Obama proposes Jobs Bill to help put Americans back to work.

I have to say, the one that makes me the most upset is #37.

Individuals/families making less than $43,320/$88,200 per year will qualify for government subsidies to help purchase health insurance

Gee, thanks to Obama, hundreds of billions of dollars each year will flow directly from the government to record-profits-making health insurers, with no caps on what they can charge "consumers" and higher deductibles and out of pocket costs.

On an unrelated note, does anyone know what it takes to qualify for the religious exemption to PPACA? I gotta plan in advance to start attending christian scientist services.

The real tragedy in all this is that they didn't mention Obama's successful coup in Hondouras. That seems like a pretty big oversight on their part. And not a single mention of expanding the war into Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan? Man, these guys are really falling down on the job in promoting our dear president.

If anything, there's a couple of things that Obama has done right over the the course of his presidential time. Those are:

1. bought sasha and malia a dog
2. held a "beer summit" for some stupid ass reason
3. increased minority access to capital

If you want a better list as to what the President has done or why you should.. um.. well, let's face it, NOT vote for him. How about trying THIS LIST on for size.

You Ever Vote For Obama..... ON WEEEEED, Man?

You Ever Vote For Obama..... ON WEEEEED, Man?

It appears that Obama just doesn't want the votes that California once provided when 2012's Presidential election comes along. Since apparently that thing about how Obama's not gonna prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries was actually pretty much crap

Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation's burgeoning medical marijuana industry, at least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week notifying them that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The state's four U.S. attorneys are scheduled to announce a broader crackdown at a Friday news conference.

Their offices refused to confirm the closure orders. The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego read. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana following a two-year period during which federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors' recommendations.

The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws. The effort to shutter California dispensaries appears to be the most far-reaching effort so far to put that guidance into action.

"This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office," Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president's drug czar who is a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Substance Abuse Solutions. "The challenge is to balance the scarcity of law enforcement resources and the sanctity of this country's medication approval process. It seems like the administration is simply making good on multiple statements made previously to appropriately strike that balance."

The landlord was ordered to evict the pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.Greg Anton, a lawyer who represents the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said the 14-year-old dispensary's landlord received an "extremely threatening" letter Wednesday invoking a federal law that imposes additional penalties for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The Marin Alliance's founder "has been paying state and federal taxes for 14 years, and they have cashed all the checks," he said. "All I hear from Obama is whining about his budget, but he has money to do this which will actually reduce revenues."

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the warnings are part of what appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to curb medical marijuana on multiple fronts and through multiple agencies. A series of dispensary raids in Montana, for example, involved agents from not only the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, but the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

Going after property owners is not a new tactic, though, Hermes said. Five years ago, the Department of Justice under President George Bush made similar threats to about 300 Los Angeles-area landlords who were renting space to medical marijuana outlets, some of whom were eventually evicted or closed their doors voluntarily, he said.

"It did have an impact. However, the federal government never acted on its threats, never prosecuted anybody, never even went to court to begin prosecutions," Hermes said. "By and large they were empty threats, but they relied on them and the cost of postage to shut down as many facilities as they could without having to engage in criminal enforcement activity."

I put in bold the whole thing because guess what, you should read the whole thing. Read it all. That's right. The Choom Gang is not getting back together after all, I guess.



But yeah, it seems that the Feds want to crack them doors open all prohibition style.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Federal authorities in California vowed to shut down dozens of pot growing and sales operations in a major crackdown, saying the worst offenders are using the cover of medical marijuana to act as storefront drug dealers.

The aggressive crackdown comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana.

No Obama! Please don't take my weed! How else will i coup with this crushing economy, a terrible jobs market and the realization that my finical future will be as bleak as the monthly unemployment report.



I mean, how can we ever stop the weed? I know, let's make it even more illegaler. Cause don't you know, weed leads to cheetos and halo. How dare they! Don't those stoners know that you're only socially allowed to stick with vicodin and other socially accepted drugs that you can get addicted to.

And if you think it's only limited to selling, think again. The whole business of running a dispensary seems fucked up. Try putting your dispensaries weed cash into a bank and you'll find that no bank will want to hold on to your drug money as the feds would put a mean choke on that.

It's rather comical when you think about how much attention the feds are paying to all this. I mean, it's not really the hard hitting real big issues, now is it? Then you have the ramifications. In California alone you're going to see 100 million in tax revenue yearly go away.

Really, the worst thing about smoking weed is not some health negative effect or having to go through AA or something, but it's with dealing with your dealer. Most dealers confuse their clients with their friends and consistently overstay their welcome when making a home delivery.

Or maybe you can chill with your dealer. I mean, they may not have much else going on. After all, they are a drug dealer. Their day is just about done. Maybe, just maybe your dealer is just part of your peer group. If so, rock on. Though you may want to warn them that the feds are on to them.

After all, cracking down on something used in recreation has proven to be the case.. just look at prohibition.