Make people uncomfortable by calling out double standards, that's how you bring change

     The media and the majority of Americans' blatant, disgusting, absolutely ridiculously fucking stupid double standards concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been well documented for decades now. And with the newest story of 3 Israeli teens being kidnapped in the West Bank, the double standard is once glaringly in the open for all the world to see.
      The only way to change someone holding a double standard is to call out quickly and decisively, using logic and reason, not preconceived notions or thinking "that's how I was raised."
      Let's start this post by establishing some truths. One: kidnapping any non-combatants for any advantage in combat or for terrorist purposes, of any race or religion, should be abhorred, not tolerated in our society, punished, and called out for what is truly is: a terrorist activity. This means that:

• Any Palestinian combatant who kidnaps an Israeli non-combatant is a terrorist, as you are using force and the threat of violence against a non-combatant. 
• Any Israeli combatant who kidnaps a Palestinian non-combatant is a terrorist. 

     Simply stating this fair, logical statement will get you branded a Jew-hater, an anti-Semite, a radical Muslim terrorist, and a hater of America. You will get threats of deportation by force, violence, and death simply by stating that it's the action that is wrong; it shouldn't matter the race or religion of the perpetrator or the victim. Don't believe me? Look at my post "Some hate Muslims get on a daily basis," and you'll see what people spew out on the Internet. That shows how fucked up most Americans' views on this issue is. To preach equality and against racism is to be a hating American terrorist. Meanwhile, people who preach inequality and racism are accepted in mainstream American society and politics.
     Now that we've established this truth, let's move onto the double standard. In a nutshell, this story of the 3 kidnapped Israeli teens is gaining a lot of attention in the media and in America. So much significantly more attention than any of the documented thousands of times Israeli soldiers have kidnapped Palestinian children. One must wonder: why? Why are people so much more concerned with Jewish people getting kidnapped, but when Muslim children get kidnapped, significantly less people are concerned about it? The actions are the same; the only thing that has changed are the actors. And this how we can determine that is because of racism that this imbalance has happened. People are judging that, depending on the race of the perpetrator and/or the victims, that determines how they will react to such an action.

     And this is the double standard. It shows that they really aren't against kidnapping children, as long as it's a race and/or religion they don't like, then they're fine with it. They're only pushing this kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teens for political purposes; if they were truly against kidnapping, then they would push Israel every time Israel kidnaps or mistreats a Palestinian child. But they don't.
     But, some might say, Israel doesn't kidnap or mistreat children. What are you talking about, they would ask, you radical anti-Semite? All you have to do is a simple Google search, which takes approximately 0.2 seconds, and you will get literally hundreds and hundreds of reports and cases about Israel kidnapping and mistreating Palestinian children by Israeli, Palestinian, American, European, and international NGOs and organizations. Here are some examples:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-government-tortures-children-by-keeping-them-in-cages-human-rights-group-says-9032826.html 
• http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/remember-israels-abuse-of-palestinian-kids/. "Pointing out that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children violates international law, the UN report cited terrifying night-time arrests, physical and verbal abuse, painful restraints, denial of access to food, water and toilet facilities, solitary confinement, coerced confessions, lack of access to lawyers and family members, shackling during court appearances and transfer to prisons outside the occupied Palestinian territories." 

     Critics will say that "oh, these Palestinian children were throwing stones at Israelis, so their treatment is justified." I'm sorry, since when that is a rule? Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Guess not, its an old American value that most Americans don't believe in anymore. Even if the Israeli military courts convicted these children of throwing stones, as I said above, many confessions were coerced through torture and threats. That means the conviction is no good, because the confession came through a illegitimate way. Give me a hammer and a few nails, and I can coerce anyone in confessing that they hijacked a Martian spaceship and landed in Washington D.C.
      Don't think that these Israeli "arrests" are kidnapping? What else would you call a bunch of masked men breaking down a door to a family's house in the dead of night, grabbing a child from his/her bed, whisking them off away to an undisclosed location, holding them without charges, and not allowing his/her parents, lawyers, etc, from seeing him/her?          

      The media has a blatant double standard about reporting Israeli children deaths and Palestinian children deaths. The evidence is just completely overwhelming: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html
     "In the first year of the current uprising, ABC, CBS, and NBC reported Israeli children’s deaths at 13.8, 6.4, and 12.4 times the rate of Palestinian children’s deaths. In 2004 these large differentials were also present, although they decreased in two cases, with deaths of Israeli children covered at rates 9.0, 12.8, and 9.9 times greater than the deaths of Palestinian children by ABC, CBS, and NBC, respectively. Given that in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, this category holds particular importance. We could find no basis on which to justify this inequality in coverage." 

    Not only that, but the major media outlets repeated coverage of the same Israeli children deaths, to make it look like there were more causalities than were actually were, while, at the same time, omitted reports on Palestinian children's deaths, to make it look like there were less casualties than were actually were. How fucking fucked up is this?! People are using children's deaths for political purposes. Fucking sick!!

    The same thing is happening in the media right now concerning the three kidnapped Israeli teens. All major news outlets have multiple articles about this one kidnapping incident, it's all over the Internet, pundits can't stop talking about it, how it shows that all Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel is the victim, etc, etc. Yet when hundreds of Palestinian children get kidnapped by Israeli terrorists every year? Nothing, maybe a short little blurb here and there, but basically nothing. Not a word of speaking out. Which means they're perfectly fine with it. As long as it's Arab children getting kidnapped, the sick disgusting media outlets are fine with it. 

     One vital piece of information that the media outlets conveniently leaves out when talking about the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds the Palestinian government responsible for the kidnapping: the kidnapping took place in a section of the West Bank that Israeli forces have complete control over and Palestinian forces cannot govern at all. It occurred in Area C of the West Bank, in which Israeli law clearly states that Israeli forces are the security forces of this area, and Palestinian forces, under no circumstances, are allowed to do anything in Area C. How fucked up is that? Stealing someone's territory, and then blaming them for not preventing a kidnapping on that stolen territory that you won't allow their policemen to go onto?  

     In conclusion, this double standard will continue to happen until people like you and me counter it. If you see it in the newspaper, write a letter to the editor calling out this disgusting double standard. If you see it on an online article, write a comment, (if it has a forum), calling it out. If your stupid greedy rich fuck of a senator says something about it in Congress, write a letter to them. If one of your so called friends, (wait, you have friends that support double standards based on religion and race?!), writes about it on any social media forum, counter it, call it out. That is the only way we can bring around change, by showing people, through logic and reason, that they are fundamentally wrong. If you're against kidnapping, then you're against kidnapping no matter the race or religion of the victim and perpetrator. If you make exceptions to your so called morale, then its not a real morale. You can't be against rape, but then think rape is okay against a certain race because you hate them.    

      

  

 

Why Do People Hate Live Action Disney Movies?

     I felt I should write about this because I am re-reading the John Carter series and feeling near euphoria while reading it because those books are such kick ass and reminiscing about how the Disney movie, (based on the first book A Princess of Mars), was so good and got me into the series in the first place.
     But we'll get to John Carter in a little bit. Let's take a step back. I've found that nearly every live action Disney movie after Pirates of the Caribbean has gotten negative reviews from critics, and my friends and other people I talk to generally dislike them. For the most part, I have no idea why. Most of their complaints don't make sense to me. The three Disney movies I'm going to be talking about are Prince of Persia The Sands of Time, The Lone Ranger, and John Carter. The first one was okay, the second one was pretty good, and the last one was amazing.
     So let's get the first one outta the way:

 

     I would have to give this movie a 5/10. 

     Pros: 

• Scenery and locales are beautiful and very well made.
• Action was so-so.
• Given the limitations of the script and director, Jake Gyllenhaal did very well in his acting and did his best to bring the Prince to life. The Prince and Tamina's teasing each other and double crossing each other is amusing and is probably the one thing that stayed true to the video game. 

     Cons:

• Prince of Persia The Sands of Time is my all time favorite video game. I was obsessed with this game in high school. It is utterly flawless. So my #1 complaint about this movie is that it didn't stay true to the video game in even it's basic premises. In the game, you fight sand zombies. There was not a single sand zombie in the movie. In the game, the princess, Farrah, fights along side you with a bow and arrows. In the movie, Tamina just whines with her annoying ass voice.
• Action could've been better. In the video game, there is a lot of stabbing and slashing. The Prince slices zombies completely in two halves in 2 strikes. The death toll is in the hundreds by the end of the game. But the action in the movie is mostly a mixture of chasing and chaotic just trying to stay alive type of fighting. It was a kiddie, toned down sort of fighting that was not fitting for this movie. I don't know what Disney was thinking when they churned this out.
• No memorable music at all. One of the best things about the video game is it's soundtrack. Here's my favorite track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwbptphnVU. It was the perfect blend of Middle Eastern and hard rock music. In the movie? Nothing, just generic orchestra movie music that does nothing to excite or immerse me in anything. 

    Out of all of the three movies I'm reviewing, this one is the one that peoples' complaints make the most sense to me. I can definitely see where they're coming from. All I'm saying is that it was just a decent movie. For people who didn't play the video game, which I'm guessing are the majority of people, it would've been fine.

     Second movie:

          
      Overall grade: 7/10
      Pros:

• Good storyline, keeps you drawn in. Has character development, characters are memorable, good villains, etc.
• Action is pretty darn good. The final scene with the William Overture finale was insane and very entertaining.
• Johnny Depp plays a good Tonto. I know there were many criticisms on this role, but none of them make any freaking sense. Tonto is a weird character, hence, Johnny Depp has to be weird. Nothing he does is "racist" towards Native Americans. The film goes out of its way to point out that Tonto bizarre actions are not the results of any Native American culture, it's simply because Tonto is a weird creepy dude. Even his own tribe says that. So are people saying its racist to have a Native American role that is anything but 100% positive? What the shit logic is that?!
• The movie length of 2 1/2 hours didn't bother me at all, because I was entertained the entire time.   

     Cons:

•  Except for the William Overture finale, the rest of the movie lacked in the music department. Nothing really memorable. As in Prince of Persia, just bland stereotypical movie music. 
• Western movies just aren't my thing, which is why this movie rating isn't higher. So it's nothing against this particular movie, I guess feel that Western movies as a genre ran its last course a long time ago because of all the limitations put on a film because the genre is so narrow. 
• Rebecca Reid, (played by Ruth Wilson), is a boring love interest. I like the love interest in movies to have some flare, a bit of drama, something to keep you interested. Reid is stone faced the entire movie, never showing any emotion, even when she finds out her husband just died. It's like she's in a daze the entire movie. 

     I don't get it when people say they don't like this movie. They can never give me a straight or coherent answer. They usually say something along the lines of "it's racist," referring to Johnny Depp playing a Native American. Since when it is a rule that people have to be the same race of anyone they portray in film? That's all Depp's doing, he's portraying a Native American. He's not saying that he himself is a Native American, or that anything he's doing is of Native American culture.
     Critics have said it has a "bland script." How is an outlaw teaming up with a Native American to avenge his brother against ruthless bandits in the Wild West a bland script? How much more action and conflict can you get in a movie?

      What really doesn't make this criticism any sense is that critics, in the same breath, say this movie is bland, while praising other movies that are just straight up boring as hell, like Avengers, the Book Thief, Captain Phillips, and Iron Man 3. I guess what I find entertaining and what the vast majority of Americans find as entertaining is very different. That's what I'm trying to understand, but so far, no luck.
      People called the plot confusing and impossible to follow. Well, I'm sorry if you people are so fucking stupid you can't follow a basic plot:

1. Bad guy kills good guy.
2. Good guy seeks revenge.
3. Good guy gets help from weird good guy, who was also wronged by a bad guy.
4. Good guys kill bad guy. 

   Okay, final review.

    Overall score: 10/10
    Pros:

• Great storyline. A Civil War veteran gets teleported to Mars, where he gets caught up in the conflict involving the green and red men of Mars. And he meets a Princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris, who he falls in love with. I mean, how does that not sound awesome? It keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time.
• Great action. John Carter is an unstoppable fighting machine. He's a good hero. You want him to win. Every fight is memorable. From rescuing Dejah Thoris to the fight with the white apes to John Carter and Woola taking on an army of green men by themselves to the finale battle at the wedding, the action is just superbly written.
• Scenery is amazing. Great visuals. Seeing this is in I-MAX in theaters was stunning. The huge deserts of Mars and the beautiful cities of the red men was a sight to behold. 
• Characters are unforgettable. John Carter is not a brute, he is a noble warrior with a sense of honor, something the green men of Mars find totally alien, (pun intended). He is a old school gentlemen, something that most films today lack. Dejah Thoris is the gorgeous heroine who is not your stereotypical damsel in distress. She's very smart, she's the one who is trying to figure out how to fix Mars's dying atmosphere with science....stuff, (it doesn't really go into it that much). But the point stands. Sola is a gentle carer in a culture of constant warfare and brutality, someone you can easily sympathize with. Woola is an adorable and loyal "hound."  

                                  

• Villians are good as well. From the savage green men to the Zodangan red men to the mysterious shape shifting white therns, John Carter really has his work cut out for him.

     Cons:

• I mean I guess the music could've been better, it was just alright. 
• As with all movies based off of books, it changed a few things that don't detract from the movie significantly, but could've been better if they left it the same. In the book, there are no shape shifting therns guiding the actions of the red Zodanga men. In fact, the therns aren't even shown till the second book. So why did they introduce them in the first movie? Also, John Carter is much more critical of the green mens' culture in the book than in the movie. In fact, except for the two green friends he makes, Sola and Tars Tarkas, he really hates them. Did they not want him to look racist by cutting that stuff out of the movie?  
• That's all the cons I got, there's a reason why this movie is a 10/10. 

     Conclusion
     I simply do not understand the criticism of John Carter. This was probably the best movie I've seen in theaters since Lord of the Rings The Two Towers in 2002. People, as with The Lone Ranger, say the plot was too hard to follow. I am a complete idiot and I understood the plot with no problem. I mean, a plot has to have twists, otherwise it's boring. Why can't people understand this. Dan Jolin of Empire magazine said the action was "unmemorable." Excuse me? What kind of action do you like? How is this fight "unmemorable?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ZeptdPPrU. Other people said it was boring. What is your peoples' definition of the word "action packed" and "boring" because apparently they're the exact opposite of my definitions.
     The sad thing about John Carter being a total flop and gutting any chances of completing the trilogy, is that the books only get better. The Gods of Mars is my favorite book out of the three. The action only gets more intense from here on out. Imagine Peter Jackson doing the Fellowship of the Ring movie and then not doing the other two. WE'RE MISSING OUT ON SO MUCH GOOD SHIT PEOPLE. 
     With complete shit movies making hundreds of millions of dollars now in days, and people raving about how good they are, and with very good movies making almost no money and having people tear into them, it appears I do not understand the human race at large.    
     
   

 

Both America and Russia play double standards

      Even fiercer than the physical fighting between Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists is the propaganda war between the United States and Russia. News media is so bloated with fucking stupid statements from both sides that is near impossible to verify anything going on in the conflict. If you aren't sure of anything going on in the conflict, then you can't form an opinion on it. It has taken me weeks and weeks to sift through all of the bullshit on the Internet to actually figure out what is going on there. Despite the fact that my major in college was Global Affairs, I still had a hard time figuring this one out. The difficulty is 90% propaganda, and only 10% the actual conflict. Meaning, if news media WOULD JUST STOP POSTING COMPLETELY FALSE STUPID SHIT, it would a hell of a lot easier to form an opinion on this conflict. I could write a whole 'nother post just on the negative influences shitty reporting has on viewers, but I digress; that is a topic for another time.

       Pro-Russians go on and on about how the U.S. is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
     "You're absolutely right. The United States is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the U.S. does these things, does not mean that Russia gets to do those same things and you pro-Russians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when the U.S. does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when Russia does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
     The same thing can be said about pro-Ukrainians who are just blindly anti-Russian without even knowing specific reasons why, other than "Well, they're communists!" Pro-Ukrainians go on and on about how Russia is lying about several concepts in Ukraine, about how they have double standards about intervention, etc, etc. No one has articulately countered these statements, which is very easy to do. My response is:
     "You're absolutely right. Russia is spitting out a lot of propaganda about the conflict in Ukraine. They absolutely engage in double standards practically every day. The point is: two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Russia does these things, does not mean that the U.S. or Ukraine gets to do those same things and you pro-Ukrainians shouldn't call them out on it. You yourselves are practicing a double standard because when Russia does a certain action, you scream bloody murder 'Imperialism! Fascism!' But when the U.S. or Ukraine does the exact same fucking thing, there is deafening silence. You don't say anything. That shows that you're not actually against that certain action, you're just against it when it politically suits you."
     Bam. No comeback is possible. I am simply observing statements from both sides of the conflict.  What people fail to realize is that evil people who are wrong most of the time can say something completely correct other times. Just because a person is evil does mean they are evil all the time. There have been men who have been disgusting terrorists who kill women and children, and then turn around the next day and run a food pantry for poor people.

     Okay, so now that we've cleared through the choking aura of propaganda, let's go through a few universal truths in the conflict to establish ground zero on understanding it.

1. People have the right to defend themselves against government attacks. They have the right to overthrow their government if the government will not stop oppressing them and violating their human rights. Seem radical? Seem anarchist? Actually, it is in line with traditional American values, logic and reason, and human psychology. The Founding Fathers believed in this truth, because they believed they were justified in overthrowing the British rule of the American colonies because of their repression. Logic says that if person A, (the government), attacks person B, (the citizens), without provocation, to only gain an advantage over him, or to steal something from him, etc, then person B has the right to use force to defend himself against person A. He is not a radical or terrorist for doing so. Psychologically speaking, if you do not believe in this, then you are giving person A the green light, and everyone else like him, to mug and kill as many person Bs as they want, and person B can't do anything about it, otherwise, he's a terrorist. This is against human psychology, because we have a primal instinct to defend ourselves if being attacked by an aggressor. 

          So what does this have to do with Ukraine? Because the first universal truth is that the  Ukrainian people had the right to overthrow the government of Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych committed a number of crimes that would make overthrowing him legitimate. Some of them include massive corruption throughout all levels of his "administration," stealing taxpayers' money for himself, taking away critics' freedom of speech, disbanding the Constitution, and killing protesters simply for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.
         The Russian narrative would say that no, the Ukrainian people did not have the right to overthrow him. They say that the Ukrainians would have to deal with Yanukovych's corruption and theft and murder. Do you see why their narrative is bullshit: "You deal with your leader, even though his oppresses and murders you. Why? Because he's our ally, and that's all that matters."

     2.  Countries do not have a right to invade other countries based on the pretext on protecting a minority from the invading country. First of all, there is no evidence that Russian minorities in Crimea were ever being persecuted by anyone. That demolishes that piece of Russian propaganda. If Russia truly believed this concept, then they would have to accept it universally, i.e. it doesn't matter who the actors are, the rule stays the same: If your minority is being persecuted in another country, you have a right to invade that country. That's how real laws work: it doesn't matter if a white person, black person, Asian, etc, commits theft. Theft is a crime no matter who does it.
     But we know Russia, specifically Putin, would never, ever, accept this rule universally. He only accepts it when it benefits Russia. Say Turkey says "Hey, Russia is persecuting our Muslim brothers and sisters in Chechnya, (which by all accounts, except Russian, Russia is. Fucking look up all of the shit these brave people have to go through every God damn day before you call them terrorists). So we will invade Russia to protect them." Can you picture Putin saying "Yep, Turkey has that right. Go ahead, I won't do anything." FUCK NO HE WOULDN'T.

       3.  Ukraine has the right to use force to take back its territory from pro-Russian separatists. Russia cries that the Ukraine are "fascists who are using violence against un-armed protesters." I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or what weapons/lack of weapons you have. If you forcefully take over government buildings, you have become a combatant against the government. The minute you use force against something, you have authorized that something to use force against you in response. You cannot attack and then call foul when that something you attacked attacks you back. Can you imagine someone using that in any other situation? Like on the playground at school: Billy starts beating the shit out of Andrew for no reason, saying the entire time "Oh, you can't fight back Andrew, otherwise, you're a bully!"
     I MEAN C'MON PEOPLE, WAKE THE FUCK UP AND FUCKING THINK! USE LOGIC! You have to be pretty God damn stupid, or stupidly pro-Russia to think that only pro-Russian people have the right to take over government buildings, shoot down helicopters, and ambush Ukrainian troops, and the Ukrainian people SHOULD JUST SIT THERE AND TAKE IT.
     Imagine if a similar situation happened to Russia. Let's say the Chechen people started another revolt, took over Russian government buildings in Chechnya, shot down Russian helicopters, and ambushed Russian soldiers. Do you think Putin would say "Yep, the Chechens have the right to do that. I'm not going to do anything."

      4.   Countries do not have the right to make up a bunch of lies against a country, and then invade it, based on those lies. This goes in line with what I said earlier. The U.S. cannot make up a bunch of "intelligence" saying that Iraq has nuclear weapons, lie and say Saddam Hussein is working with al-Qaida, etc, and then invade the country on those false premises, and then set up a puppet government, stealing their natural resources, using it to flame a war it benefits from, etc, etc.
      And just because the U.S. did that does NOT give Russia the right to make up "intelligence" that says Russian Crimeans are being persecuted, exaggerate the political views of the new Kiev government to benefit Russia, and then invade Crimea and send mercenaries into eastern Ukraine on those false premises.
     Two wrongs don't make a right. Both are wrong, fascist acts of state terrorism.

     5.    The Kiev government is not automatically "illegitimate" just because it came to power in a coup. If you go by that rule, then that means George Washington's government was illegitimate because it came to power through force. That means any government that has ever come into being through a revolution, coup, rebellion, etc, is automatically and without question, illegitimate. The Kiev government will become legitimate if it has free and fair elections, which it is going to do in 2 days, despite all the pro-Russian separatists are trying to derail them.
      Of course, Putin doesn't believe in this rule universally. If a government comes to power that happens to be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is legitimate and that the people had the right to overthrow the previous government, etc. But if a government comes to power that happens to not be pro-Russian, or that Putin believes he can't benefit from it, then of course he will say that government is illegitimate and that the people did NOT have the right to overthrow the previous government.

 
      In conclusion, this shows that world leaders rarely, if ever, stand for any of the positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, that they say they stand for. They only stand for those positions, ideals, rights, concepts, etc, ONLY if it benefits them. If it doesn't, then you see an incredible 180 degree spin on their view on it. This is not the right way to govern. People must stand for ideals, no matter who is involved. For example, I believe that every person, regardless of their race or their creed, has the right to defend themselves from an aggressive attacker in self-defense. World leaders only support that right to certain people when it benefits them; when it doesn't, they suddenly don't believe in that right for a certain people.
     Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagen, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, both George Bushs, Gordon Brown, Francois Hollande, Xi Jinping, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Hu Jintao, and many more, they're all FUCKING LIARS.         

     
         

Protesting the Nigerian Government Will Get You Nowhere

     Boko Haram, a radical terrorist organization, kidnapped more than 250 teenage school girls in Nigeria several weeks ago. The corrupt, tyrannical, and incompetent Nigerian government has absolutely no idea where the girls are, (at least they say they don't. Who can trust anything they say? They're corrupt fascists. But I digress). Many Nigerians are in open protest against the government, demanding they do more to find the school girls.
     All I can think is...wow, they're all fucking idiots.
     That's right, I'm, who usually is all for any action against corrupt oligarchical governments, condemning these protests as a complete and utter waste of time, and an action that makes every protester look like a liberal brainwashed whiner.
     Why is it a waste of time? Because anyone who knows anything about non-violent protests know that they only work when there is a chance that the government will acquiesce to the protesters' demands and/or understand their point of view. Let's see what human rights organizations say about the Nigerian government:

• Human Rights Watch, (HRW): "Nigerian authorities also arrested hundreds of people during raids across the north. Many of those detained were held incommunicado without charge or trial, in some cases in inhuman conditions. Some were physically abused; others disappeared or died in detention." 
• HRW: "The failure of Nigeria’s government to address the widespread poverty, corruption, police abuse, and longstanding impunity for a range of crimes has created a fertile ground for violent militancy."
• HRW: "Abuses by government security forces and the ruling elite’s mismanagement and embezzlement of the country’s vast oil wealth also continued largely unabated. Free speech and the independent media remained robust. Nigeria’s judiciary continued to exercise a degree of independence, but many of the corruption cases against senior political figures remained stalled in the courts." http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/nigeria 
• United Nations, (UN): "the Nigerian military carries out extra-judicial killings, torture and illegally detains suspects." http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/14/human-rights-nigeriasecuritybokoharam.html
•  Amnesty International: "The police regularly commit human rights violations, including unlawful killings, torture and other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances. The justice system is under-resourced and riddled with delays. Prisons are overcrowded; the majority of inmates are pre-trial detainees, some held for many years. Hundreds of people remain on death row, many sentenced after unfair trials. Conflict in the Niger Delta threatens the safety and lives of residents. Human rights defenders and journalists face intimidation and harassment. Violence against women is widespread and the government fails to protect the rights of children. Forced evictions take place across the country." http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/africa/nigeria 

     I found all that in about 2 seconds. 
     Now does it seem like the Nigerian government does not give a FLYING FUCK about what ANY of its citizens think or say?! Yes, protesting may make you look all cute and sophisticated and having the moral high ground and all that other stupid liberal bullshit, but when the police can just raid your house and kill you in cold blood and get away with it, what does it do? It's just a complete and utter waste of time.
     Protesting against the Nigerian government will not do a single thing in finding the kidnapped girls, because it is not the Nigerian government that is holding them. Boko Haram is holding them, which, by the way, is at war with the Nigerian government. It's like if the Taliban killed some civilians, so then some Afghan civilians protest against the Afghani government. What the fuck is that going to do?!
     If Nigerian citizens actually wanted to do something to help find the girls, they could any one of the following:

• First off, fucking get rid of the liberal brainwashing that the government is supposed to protect you. Man up, take responsibility of your own life and safety, and learn the skills necessary to defend yourself. Stop being an adult baby and crying out for protection like a helpless infant. Buy guns, buy ammo, train, form neighbor watches/defense groups, actually TALK with your family and neighbors about what they're going to do in an emergency, etc. 
• Get rid of the people covering for Boko Haram. A terrorist group that is vastly outgunned by it's enemy relies on a network of spies, lookouts, people who are willing to cover for them when they need to, etc, those type of people. This advantage offsets the disadvantage Boko Haram has against the Nigerian military in relation to firepower, air power, etc. People allow these terrorist supporters to live and operate among them, because they don't want their relatives and friends getting into trouble. The Nigerian people must stand on principle, and even if they must turn against friends and family in denunciation of terrorism, then that is what they must do if they want to purge their communities of terrorist influence. 
• Fight against the Nigerian government. This will be a two front war for the Nigerian people. Fighting Boko Haram on one side and the Nigerian government on the other is not an easy task. But it is obvious that the Nigerian government is neither a legitimate government nor a one that respects their citizens' human rights. Logic tells us what the Nigerian people must do if they want a government that is legitimate and will respect their human rights: Perform armed struggle against the Nigerian government until it falls, and then elect a new government in a short amount of time. The warfare should contrast greatly with Boko Haram's tactics, to show that this is the right way to wage a revolution. Instead of attacking civilians and kidnapping teenage girls, the Nigerian people should only attack against Nigerian military and government personnel. 

 

     In conclusion, in regards to what us, the American people can do to help, there is not much. This is the Nigerian peoples' fight, not ours. We cannot swoop down like saviors and save the savage Africans from each other, (sarcasm). No, the world doesn't work that way. But what we can do is this:

• Denounce U.S. military aid to Nigeria. The U.S. has given more than $600 million to the Nigerian military every year since 2010. That's right, your hard earned tax money goes to state sponsored terrorists. That is not a lot compared to the U.S.'s budget, but to the Nigerian military, that is a jackpot of money that can buy all sorts of vehicles and weapons they can use to repress their own citizens. Plus, when we strengthen the Nigerian military, we also strengthen Boko Haram. Why is that? Because when a Nigerian soldiers kills and rapes a woman, holding a U.S. rifle, her brother gets infuriated, (as he has the right to), and runs to join the biggest threat to the Nigerian military which is guess what: Boko Haram. 
• Explain that one can revolt against the Nigerian government and still not be a terrorist. There is a legitimate, (morally and legally speaking), way to fight against an authority that breaks human rights. All people have the right to use force against an authority that repeatedly breaks their human rights. This is confirmed in human psychology as well as the American Founding Fathers. Show the Nigerian people that we recognize and support their right to fight for a real democracy.          
• Do not support American intervention in this conflict. Boko Haram, horrible as they may be, is no threat to us. This is the Nigerian peoples' fight, not ours. Even thought we could militarily beat Boko Haram no problem, an American intervention would only make things worse. 

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

(The following was my research paper for my final project for my grad class).

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

          In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. federal government created new departments, gave more power to and expanded existing ones, and wrote into law new acts. These include creating the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS), passing the Patriot Act, (and later, passing the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA), and augmenting the size, force, and power of local police forces. The government claimed to take these measures to combat terrorism. However reports from news agencies, human rights organizations, think-tanks, and scholarly research have shown that terrorism has never been and is not a major threat to Americans, certainly, there are at least a dozen other causes of death that have caused more American deaths than terrorism. The first part of this paper will analyze the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. It will also go into how Homeland Security policy makers dealt with these issues. The second part of this paper will analyze the rights of the American people taken away or being taken away from terrorism, compared to the rights taken away or being taken away by the government, from a Homeland Security perspective. Lastly, this research paper will explore a case study of Homeland Security in action.

          Before delving into the topics, first it is necessary to identify the actors in this issue. The principal actors are government agencies, as they are the ones that enforce the policies. These include DHS, the National Security Agency, (NSA), the Department of Justice, (DOJ), Customs and Border Protection, (CBP), FBI, and all local and state police and sheriffs offices. 

          The two main concerns that privacy advocates and human rights organizations have in relation to federal agencies and local police forces’ actions in Homeland Security is the militarization of police, and the taking away of peoples’ human rights.  The first one is important when talking about the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. Here are some statistics that will illustrate this concept:

·         Americans are 8 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist. All emotions and political slants aside, strictly statistically speaking, the American police is more of a threat to the American people than terrorists are, (www.huffingtonpost.com). Not counting 9/11, that statistic jumps to Americans are 29 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist.   

·         SWAT Teams invade more than 100 private homes every day, (www.abajournal.com).

·         The number of police raids has jumped from 30,000 in 1995 to 45,000 in 2001, (same source as the one above).

·         DHS will purchase 450 million bullets over the next 5 years, including 75 million in 2014 alone, (www.businessinsider.com).

·         DHS also purchased 2,500 mine resistant APCs.

          DHS coordinates with the FBI and state and local police forces to achieve its goals of stopping terrorist attacks and disaster response. Some of DHS’s mission statements that pertain to this topic are as followed: prevent terrorism and enhancing security; secure and manage our borders; enforce and administer our immigration laws; and ensure resilience to disasters. Behind the statistics are the policies that result in the statistics. The problem is that current homeland security efforts undermine preparedness every bit as much as they support it. Homeland Security officials and local and state police chiefs also involved top-down management systems and military-style command and control strategies in planning and implementation, often focusing on a doctrine of offense and preemption, (Bach). They are so focused on offense that they lose hindsight of the main goal of homeland security: to protect citizens’ lives and human rights.

          This leads to the first of two articles that form the backbone of looking at the actors’ approach to Homeland Security. Robert Bach and David Kaufman say in the very first sentence of their article that federal, state, and local authorities must work with citizens to achieve security. Constantly attacking citizens, taking away their guaranteed human rights, and ultimately creating a narrative or implying that they are the enemy is not working with them in any sense of the definition. That is why Bach and Kaufman say security has eluded us since the “War on Terror” started.

          So focused on offense that policies set by agencies such as the FBI and DOJ can break trust between the government and its citizens, the fundamental concept that Homeland Security relies on. Citizens cannot trust a government whose policies can be seen as making the citizens the enemy of the government. Such a policy would be the FBI’s and DOJ’s guidelines as what actions could be done by a “potential terrorist”:

Ø  Purchasing anything with cash most of the time instead of a credit or debit card.

Ø  Opposition to war.

Ø  Opposition to abortion.

Ø  Frustration with the two main political parties.

Ø  Buying a large amount of bullets, (doesn’t say what a “large amount” qualifies as).

Ø  Being concerned about your privacy from the government.

Ø  Complaining about the quality of tap water.

(www.publicintelligence.net)

       These actions are what ordinary, non-terrorists do every day. These are actions that many FBI and DOJ employees do. Is the FBI and DOJ calling their own employees potential terrorists? If government agencies want to protect Americans and their rights, a peaceful engagement of communities in collaboration would be much more effective in enhancing the resiliency and security of the nation, (Frazzano).

       This is what the second article talks about: government agencies redefining their cultural and operational identities to accurately combat new and emerging threats. It also introduces a concept called “The Whole Community,” in which “shared understanding of community risks, needs, and capabilities leads to an increase in resources through the empowerment of community members.” Nowhere in the article or in this concept does it suggest that the large majority of American citizens are potential terrorists due to doing ordinary tasks. DHS policies must incorporate the concept of The Whole Community, as this shows that DHS is working with the communities, not against them. 

       In comparing the amount and severity of the American people’s human rights taken away by terrorists and taken away by the government, the only right the terrorists took away have been the 3,000+ peoples’ right to life that they have killed since 9/11 to the present. The rights that the government has taken, is taking, and has the power to take away if it wants to, are:[1]

§  Freedom of speech. For example, protesting certain government policies is called “terrorism,” for which the government can kill U.S. citizens for. Talking against certain police actions or simply asking a police officer questions is called “assault,” or “resisting arrest.” There is no need for the government to convict a person of terrorism, they only label them a “suspected terrorist” and then kill them.

§  Freedom of the press. There have been 7 instances in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media, the most during any U.S. presidential administration in history. In comparison, it has only been used 3 times before Obama took office. It has stolen emails, phone records, and tracked the movements of journalists, (Fox News reporter James Rosen, for example), it secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 Associated Press journalists, and prosecuted sources of journalists with felony charges, (Zongker).

§  Second Amendment. The Obama administration, and many past administrations, has repeatedly infringed on American citizens’ right to bear arms. While it is not DHS policy that affects this right, the police forces are the ones that enforce states’ laws relating to this amendment. Whether it has been trying to ban magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or trying to reinstate the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” (www.whitehouse.gov), Obama has made it clear, through his actions and words, that he does not believe that the second amendment means that Americans can own guns.

§  Fourth Amendment. From allowing home invasions by police and SWAT teams without a warrant, to having the NSA steal personal information from customers of many U.S. companies, to stealing emails and phone calls from ordinary American citizens who haven’t committed terrorism, nor committed any other crime. Some statistics related to this would be, for example, that the NSA surveys 75% of all American Internet traffic, (www.reuters.com), and collected near 100% of American phone calls in 2006, down to 30% today, (www.digitaltrends.com).

§  The Fifth Amendment: The Patriot Act, and later, the NDAA, gives the government to hold an American citizen in prison indefinitely, without charges, or access to an attorney. That effectively destroys the 5^th amendment.

§  Sixth Amendment: Those same two pieces of legislation also takes away an American’s right to a trial, nullifying the 6^th Amendment.

          Examples of some of these rights being taken away from American citizens can be seen in the case study of this paper, which is the case of Sarah Abdurrahman. Sarah, her family, and some friends were returning from Canada to the United States through the Niagara Falls border crossing on September 2^nd, 2013. Sarah, and everyone in her party, are American citizens. They had been attending a wedding of another family member in Toronto, Canada, and now were returning home on Labor Day.

Sarah Abdurrahman

           When they got to the border crossing, they were immediately detained by CBP agents, with no explanation. They were held in a freezing cold room without bathrooms for six hours. Sarah repeatedly asked an agent why they were being held, but he answered “It is not your right to know.” Then they took all of their cellphones after demanding they unlock them. They didn’t get their cellphones back. After about five and half hours in detainment, one of the detained men, Khaled Ahmed, was put into handcuffs, without warning, taken from his family and put into a jail cell. The officers did not inform either Ahmed or his family why he was being taken. The rest of the family was soon released but CBP refused to tell them where Ahmed was. Eventually, they told the family that another “agency” was coming to pick Ahmed up. The agency ended up being the Michigan State Police, picking up Ahmed for an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate (i.e. not screwed on right) from 2006. After Sarah got home, she tried to contact CBP and DHS to demand an explanation, but they never picked up the phone. Since CBP never gave Sarah a reason for doing all of this, she can only assume it was because of her and her party’s religion, (Sarah wears a hijab), (Reuters). 

          It is illegal for law enforcement officers to perform searches or detentions based solely on your race, national origin, religion, sex or ethnicity. The CBP officers infringed on Sarah’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. CBP and other Homeland Security officers are allowed to conduct stops and searches with no probable cause or arrest warrants at the border, under what is known as the "border search exception." The exception allows for routine searches. However, once you start holding citizens for prolonged detentions, it falls under non-routine searches. For that, the officer needs a particular and objective basis for suspecting that person of illegal activity, (Reuters).

          There are a number of conclusions and observations that can be made from this story. One is that the rapid expansion of and the lack of oversight over CBP contributed to Sarah being treated the way that she was. CBP has grown so fast in the decade that it has existed that government oversight has not kept pace. CBP had 10,817 in 2004. Today, it has 63,560. Therefore, there is no logical reason for CBP to not treat Muslims like they did Sarah. None of the CBP agents in the example even got a harsh comment from any supervisor. Nothing bad happened to them, so in their minds, they are thinking: why should we change our behavior?

          This is not the only time something like what Sarah experienced has happened. Human rights groups, such as the ACLU, have seen that these human rights abuses happen regularly, i.e. it is not an isolated incident that can be blamed on just a few bad CBP agents. No, they infringe on Americans’ human rights daily, meaning it is a DHS policy; the policy makers at DHS and CBP, along with training instructors, are teaching the CBP to act this way. That means certain DHS policies run contrary to the Constitution. There is no other reason why this problem is so widespread and across agencies, not just in CBP. This case study could not capture an agency breaking more Amendments than the Fourth and Fifth. But that doesn’t mean that at other times, in other situations, that DHS and local police forces are not breaking the other Amendments listed on the fifth and sixth and pages.      

          CBP’s actions run in line with the narrative and training that DHS’s approach has to Homeland Security. An overly aggressive Homeland Security doctrine saw Sarah and her party as potential terrorists, hence, their human rights being broken. Citizens are the first line in Homeland Security. Many terrorist attacks have been stopped because concerned citizens report what they heard/saw someone doing to police. That is the vital link between authorities and the communities that Bach and Kaufman talked about. If that link is broken by human rights abuses, and aggressive and rude behavior by the authorities, then the nation as a whole will not be as effective in stopping terrorist attacks and achieving security.  

Works Cited

          “American journalist and family detained and harassed at US border.” September 24^th, 2013. http://rt.com/usa/abdurrahman-npr-border-detain-291/

          Bach, Robert and David Kaufman. “A Social Infrastructure for Hometown Security: Advancing the Homeland Security Paradigm.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume V, NO. 2 (May 2009). 

          Balko, Radley. “How did America’s police become a military force on the streets?” ABA Journal, 1/8/2013.

          Erman, Michael. “NSA surveillance covers 75 percent of U.S. Internet traffic: WSJ.” Reuters. 8/20/2013.   

          “FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers.” February 1^st, 2012. https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/

          Frazzano, Tracy, and Matthew Synder. “Hybrid Targeted Violence:

Challenging Conventional “Active Shooter” Response Strategies.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume 10 Article 3 (February 2014).

          Johnson, Robert. “The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets.” Business Insider, 4/5/2014.  

          Nield, David. “New reports say NSA phone tracking covers 20-30 percent of calls.” Digital Trends. 2/8/2014.

          Whitehead, John. “Vigilantes With a Badge: The War Against the American People.” Huffington Post, 2/26/2014.

          White House. “Now is the Time to Do Something About Gun Violence.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

          Zongker, Brett. “Report: Obama brings chilling effect on journalism.” The Associated Press. 10/13/2013.  

---

[1] The following bullet points are merely quick summaries of the rights the government has taken away from us, as a whole paper can be written just one of these bullet points.

Links To My Other Social Media....stuff

Yep, this isn't a current events post. I'll periodically post links to the other stuff that I do on the Internet. It would be great if you could follow me on other sites so you'll never miss any exciting/stupid stuff that I do.

My garage band Disorderly Conduct's FB page!: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Disorderly-Conduct/612264142194507
My Youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zXfVrgkubnTeJFKnRcR9g