Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Anarcho-Misogyny: How to Get Revenge on a Cheating Female

10 Things to Do if You Think Your Woman is Cheating (Besides Being a Wallflower and Fading into Obscurity)

Very few real details have surfaced as to the reaction of LeAnn Rimes' ex-husband Dean Sheremet, who didn't go out and smash his wife's car with a golf club, key the clearcoat, or slash his name into her leather seats.  However, here at Screed of Momus, we note that if we were in his situation, we'd be tempted to do those sorts of things--or whip out a few of these equally badassed, awesomely wrong revenge tactics.

1.  Dust the inside of her thong panties with either hot chili powder or itch powder.
2.  Donate her brand new living room furniture and/or bedroom suite to Goodwill.
3.  Engaged?  Take the ring back, even cutting it off of her finger if you have to.
4.  Change her e-mail's auto response to "I'm unavailable today because of a herpes flare-up."
5.  "Forget" where you parked her car across town in a bad neighborhood.
6.  Take those naked pics of her and put them on the Internet, with the attached stipulation that everyone viewing has probably already seen the goods, given that she's a total cheating whore.
7.  Invite your best buddies to a kegger in her backyard, using her furniture, collectible curios, and scrapbooks of childhood and college sorority memories as kindling.
8.  Resist the urge to break up with her until the day she has an important meeting or a brunch with her mom-then give her an appropriate label with a Sharpie like "Whore" or "Slut" on her forehead.  Maybe even "Dick goes here" on the cheek with an arrow towards her mouth.
9.  Serve up some Ex-Lax chocolate cheesecake to give her puh-lenty of time to sit and think about what she's done.
10.  Offer to give her a trim down there with the electric razor, and then show her how adultery by females is treated and/or prevented in the Third World: female circumcision.  

Now, now, now...before you get angry with me, and start fulminating in the comments section, read this article in Cosmopolitan and think about how violence towards a male cheater is routinely legitimized  within the media.   Also, compare my suggestions to those offered by Cosmopolitan, because other than inverting the gender, I haven't done anything that different.  And didn't lose that much, brother.  She's an ass.  

And consider the following list of female cheaters, and think about what the reaction would have been had their spouses or significant others chased them into a driveway with a golf club upon hearing of their extracurricular activities:

Whoopi Goldberg, Madonna, LeAnn Rimes, Jessica Simpson, Tori Spelling, Meg Ryan, Kelly Brook, Jennifer Lopez, and Britney Spears.  This list doesn't count the various women who knowingly and willfully sleep with married men and somehow escape culpability for their actions, even to the point of cashing in at over $1 million a mistress, as Tiger Woods' various mistresses did.  

The State and Death as a Penalty

The death penalty is an issue that divides and polarizes us.  There are those who feel as though it is riddled with bias in its distribution to convicted murderers, and given the fact that almost 78% of those sentenced to death since 1976 have been convicted of murdering a white victim, there might be something to that argument.  Additionally, there is this: 

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
          - United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

You're three times as likely to be sentenced to death if you kill a non-Latino white than you are if you kill an African-American.  You're less likely to be sentenced to the death penalty in a high-homicide area like Los Angeles than you are in say, Napa or Shasta County.  But all of those arguments aside, the single largest problem with the death penalty is that it is administered by the State.   

The State, be in the state of California or the federal government,  has as its defining characteristic total incompetence and corruption.  People zero in on September 11th, 2001 as a defining moment in our nation's history, but the day before, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went before the press to admit that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion.  At the time, that amount of money was larger than the entire federal budget.   That's right, the Pentagon lost more money than the federal government spent in an entire year.    

You may not care that race is a factor in death penalty sentencing, and you may even argue that the reason for the disparity is the fact that blacks are disproportionately more likely to commit murder.  According to the Bureau of Justice, back in 1996, though blacks were just 12 percent of the population, they accounted for 54 percent of the murders.  What that statistic means is simple: blacks are eight times as likely to commit murder as whites.  

Or are they? The argument could be made that they're eight times as likely to be convicted of murder, and from what we know of the State's track record, conviction does not always equal guilt.  We have in this country a system built on the public trust of the State to deliver just results, but there is little left in the way of a reputation or a track record to justify trusting the State to produce just or even fact-based results.  

The State lies.  It's just that simple.  We invest the State with awesome power to defend our interests and represent those interests, but the history of the State is a history that speaks to its stunning tendency to take that power and use it against us, the very people who established the State in the first place!   Let's review a few of the United States' greatest hits, just for propriety's sake: 

  • 1950-The U.S. Navy burst a few balloons filled with the agent serratia marcescens over San Francisco Bay, and eleven patients at a San Francisco hospital developed serious urinary tract infections.  One, a man named Edward J. Nevin, died.  Cases of pneumonia also spiked after the Navy's little experiment.  
  • 1966-The U.S. releases bacillus subtilis into the New York subway system.  While the microbe is largely harmless, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. government released a microbe into a public area without the knowledge or consent of its citizens.   
  • In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began its infamous Tuskegee Study of 399 African-American men who had previously contracted syphilis.   For forty years, the U.S. Public Health Service allowed syphilis to progress in those men to the point of death, even after penicillin became widely available as a cure for syphilis.  When 250 of the subjects enlisted for World War II, they were diagnosed with syphilis and ordered to undergo treatment.  The Public Health Service intervened to prevent treatment from being administered.   The end result was that by the time the study was revealed in 1972, 128 of the men had died from syphilis or related complications, and 40 of their wives had been infected with syphilis, while 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis.  Had the study not been revealed in 1972 by a whistleblower to the Washington Star and the New York Times, it would likely have been allowed to continue.  
  • 1946-48, the U.S. Public Health Service deliberately infected prisoners, soldiers, and mental patients with syphilis.  696 men and women were exposed to syphilis without their consent.  
  • 1950s-60s the CIA, in coordination with various foreign intelligence agencies, began human experimentation by administering LSD and other drugs to unwitting subjects.   In one case, a subject was dosed with LSD for 77 consecutive days.   This resulted in at least one death, but the full extent of the CIA's human experimentation is not known due to the destruction of records in 1973 under the order of then CIA Director Richard Helms.
  • August 1951 the CIA allegedly spiked the food supply in Pont-Saint-Esprit, France with LSD.  Seven people died, and 32 others were committed to mental institutions.  
  • 1900, the U.S. Army's doctors in the Philippines injected five prisoners with bubonic plague, and induced beriberi in over twenty others.  Four died.  
  • 1940s, the Statesville Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois was the site of a malaria study in which prisoners were deliberately exposed to and infected by malaria.  The study continued over a 29 year span.  
This is the State.  We invest this entity with the power to determine guilt or innocence, and then go well beyond that to invest the State with the power to sentence people to death for murder and to carry out the sentence.   

A Problem of Logic

Each side in the death penalty debate usually argues over one of two issues: the constitutionality or the immorality of the penalty.  It's cruel and unusual, or it's distributed unjustly and therefore wrong.   We dispense with the former argument by noting that the death penalty is usually neither cruel nor unusual relative to many of the crimes committed by the murderer in question.  We may dispose of the latter objection by noting that just because something isn't uniformly distributed doesn't make it unfair.  You may very well deserve to die for what you did, and the fact that someone else didn't die for committing the same crime does not lessen your culpability or excuse you from the penalty for the crime.  Life isn't fair.  

However, the problem this logic is that we're talking about an irreversible punishment.  You can't reverse death.  If you put someone to death for murder, and you later find out that the prosecutors failed to divulge exculpatory evidence to the defendant's attorneys, there's no possibility whatsoever that the defendant can be resurrected to life.   It's done.  It's over.  

Moreover, guilt is determined by a State whose prosecutors more oft than not engage in various forms of malfeasance and gamesmanship with the defendant's legal counsel.   As an aspiring future attorney engaged in the study of law,  I can tell you that a good many of my peers view the study and practice of law as something of a game with loopholes and nuances that can be exploited.  I'd say the same is true of many of my professors and most of the practicing attorneys I've met.  

When a human life is at stake, it's best to err on the side of caution.  I write that sentence believing that all of us can agree with the statement therein.  I may be wrong.   

We can't argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because history clearly tells us that it is constitutional.  It's been around since the genesis of the Constitution, and no one ever bothered to object to its constitutionality, and if they did, their objection would have likely been unsuccessful.  However, the fact that something is constitutional doesn't make it right.  The Constitution is not the be-all end-all of righteousness.  The mere fact that a practice is constitutionally correct does not extend to that practice the imprimatur of unquestioned legitimacy or undeniable morality.   

I could argue that coverture is constitutional, given that nothing in the Constitution prohibits the practice or denies the underlying logic.  However, that would be really stupid, wouldn't it?  Our view of permissible conduct has evolved to the point where we would clearly say that the Constitution extends to women the right to own property separately from their husbands.   In fact, our view of impermissible state power has evolved to the point where most if not all of us would recoil indignantly at any attempt to re-institute coverture.  However, the basic point is still valid: while women have the right to vote under the 19th Amendment, and our view of freedom has evolved to the point where various preceding amendments to the 19th Amendment can be cobbled together to give women a right to terminate their pregnancies, even though the history of those amendments evinces no such right until it was conjured up ex-nihilo in Roe; we generally accept that coverture, though not expressly ended by any constitutional amendment, is not permitted under the Constitution.  

The fact that something is constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it right or wrong per se.  We can all agree that slavery, while constitutional for decades after the Constitution was ratified into the Supreme Law of the land, was always immoral and wrong. There are those who might try to play Devil's Advocate by pointing to the Old Testament, but I'll dispense with that notion right away: I don't believe that God created men to be owned like animals or land.  I refuse to even entertain any argument predicated on the notion that He did create men to live lives as chattel.    

After moving beyond the narrow focuses typically demonstrated by death penalty advocates and opponents,  we can get into the real issue: whether or not the State can be trusted with the power to terminate human life as punishment for a crime like murder.   The answer, given the State's abominable history of abusing whatever powers we've given it, is clearly in the negative.  

One has only to look at the illogic of the State to see this.   In 1990, a case involving the family of one Nancy Beth Cruzan came before the United States Supreme Court.  Cruzan had been rendered into a vegetative state as a result of injuries sustained in a car accident.   Her parents Lester and Nancy sought a court order to withdraw her feeding and hydration tubes in order to allow their daughter to die after doctors informed them that Nancy's chances of regaining cognitive function were nil.   For seven years, Nancy had lain in a vegetative state as a result of oxygen deprivation for an estimated 12 to 14 minutes after her car accident.   Permanent brain damage occurs after just six minutes of oxygen deprivation.  

Enter the State of Missouri, which denied that there was clear and convincing evidence of Nancy's will as to the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes, even though her former roommate had testified at trial level to Nancy's desire to be allowed to die rather than exist in a vegetative state.   The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the roommate's testimony was "unreliable for the purpose of determining her [Cruzan's] intent." The court held that clear and convincing evidence must be demonstrated as to Cruzan's intent, and that direct eyewitness testimony from a former roommate did not meet that standard of proof.   The reason was that the State of Missouri had an interest in defending the life of a human being in a vegetative state, because error in this case would be irreversible.  That is, if Cruzan's intent had been to remain on life support, and her roommate had been testifying in error or as a deliberate effort to promote a falsehood for whatever reason, and the feeding tube had been removed, any later revelations as to Cruzan's contrary intent would be for naught.  Once Cruzan was dead, she would always be dead.   The State's interest in preserving against error in the case of a human vegetable outweighed the interests of her parents in seeking to let their daughter die after seven years in a vegetative state, even though their daughter's doctors said there was virtually no chance of any recovery.   

In theory, clear and convincing evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, although the testimony of an eyewitness to a murder generally suffices to bring about a conviction.  In practice, Cruzan stood for the idea that clear and convincing had been elevated to a level of certainty that exceeded beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is, the eyewitness testimony of a roommate and the testimony of parents who knew their daughter did not suffice to indicate the daughter's will one way or the other.   No, the State of Missouri required something more; in this case, the direct statement of the daughter herself in the form of a living will or an advanced directive.   It required absolute certainty.   

Now, extrapolate that to the death penalty, in which a fully functioning human being is convicted of murder utilizing the purportedly high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced to die.  Beyond a reasonable doubt does not entail absolute certainty as to the guilt or innocence of the condemned.   There's no demand for videotaped footage of the crime or direct proof.   People are convicted of murder and sentenced to death without absolute certainty all the time.  

What's more, they're convicted within a system that has a long-documented and oft-lamented history of abuse.  The case of John Thompson illustrates this quite well, because in 1985, Thompson was convicted of murder after being convicted of armed robbery in another case.  He spent 18 years in prison, with 14 of those years on death row.  During that time, Thompson endured through seven scheduled executions, all of which were delayed for one reason or another due to last-minute appeals.  

Thompson's convictions would eventually be overturned when it was revealed that the prosecutors working his case had withheld exculpatory evidence from his attorneys.  One of the prosecutors had even swiped a blood sample from the evidence room, and this was after he and his peers had withheld the results of blood testing that showed Thompson's blood didn't match the blood collected from the crime scene.   Additionally, the eyewitness testimony was withheld from the defense because the eyewitness described someone who didn't resemble Thompson in the slightest.  Five prosecutors were involved in the malfeasance that took place in the Thompson case, and one of them knew of the violations for five years but said nothing.   

The district attorney's office in question had four other convictions overturned for similar malfeasance.  The District Attorney acknowledged that he wasn't aware of the requirement to share evidence with the defendant's attorneys because he misunderstood the Supreme Court case that mandated such sharing, even though at the time of Thompson's case, Brady v. Maryland had been on the books as controlling precedent for 22 years!  The D.A. said he'd stopped reading law books and opinions in 1974 when he was elected as the District Attorney.  

These are the people who get convictions on our behalf, and they're part of the system we trust to only execute those who are 100% guilty of murder.  The advantages they possess compared to an indigent defendant are considerable: the unlimited resources of the State, and the ability to cheat without getting caught unless one of their peers has a a guilty conscience and comes clean.  Even then, there are few if any real consequences for such individuals.  They won't be charged with attempted murder, even though they purposely engaged in conduct with the purpose of causing an accused person's death.   Given the recent majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Connick v. Thompson, even if the accused avoids the death penalty, he can't sue the district attorney whose actions caused him to be sentenced to death even if the district attorney's actions are so willfully wanton as to be an obvious violation of the law and the Constitution.   

In theory, John Thompson was convicted under the highest standard available: beyond a reasonable doubt.  In practice, however, the standard of proof pursued by the State of Missouri of clear and compelling evidence as to the will of one Nancy Beth Cruzan after she lay in a vegetative state for seven years was much higher than beyond a reasonable doubt.  In truth, we have a standard of absolute certainty for human vegetables as a result of Cruzan, but we have only beyond a reasonable doubt for able-bodied men who are accused and convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to the death penalty.   

The fundamental illogic and utter contradiction that underlies such a system is stunning.  When coupled with the documented history of State corruption, incompetence, and misconduct, the idea that the State can be invested with the power to extinguish human life without abusing that power is absurd on its face.  One does not have to be a bleeding heart, or an individual who waxes romantic over the sanctity of human life; one has only to be a cold realist about the State's demonstrable tendency to engage in horrific abuses of its power.   

One can argue all day over the constitutionality of the death penalty, or the moral implications of its use, but what one cannot do is fashion an argument that it is wise and prudent to invest States with the power to extinguish human lives as punishment for murder or any other crime, given the history of State overreach and abuses where other lesser powers are concerned.   No argument rooted in logic or rational thought could reach the conclusion that the State has a good enough reputation to sustain or warrant the continuation of its power to execute human beings for crimes.  

If the reason for denying the family of Nancy Beth Cruzan the ability to remove her feeding tube was that clear and convincing evidence rising to the level of utter certainty as to Nancy Beth Cruzan's wishes was absent, then how can you execute a man convicted of murder under the arguably lesser standard in practice of beyond a reasonable doubt?   If the irrevocability of death was the rationale for the State of Missouri's insistence on clear and convincing evidence as to Nancy Beth Cruzan's wishes, why isn't it the rationale for a heightened standard where capital punishment is concerned?   In both cases, error results in an irreversible consequence, but the perverse nature of our criminal justice system is such that a fully functioning human being convicted of murder by a demonstrably corrupt and incompetent State is subjected to a lesser standard of proof in practice than a human vegetable who has no cognitive function whatsoever.    

When a human life is at stake, it is best to err on the side of caution. The Court's rationale in Cruzan is consistent with this standard, but it cannot be reconciled with the rationale that underlies the support most people exhibit for capitol punishment.  In criminal cases, investing the State with such power is unwarranted and imprudent, as it invites abuses that are irreversible.  Once the life of a human being is extinguished, there is no turning back.  The die is cast.  The standard for extinguishing the life of a human being in a persistent vegetative state ought not to be higher practice than the standard used to extinguish the life of a convicted murderer.  

Moreover, when looking at what most people take as clear proof of guilt, be it a confession by the alleged killer or DNA evidence found at the scene, we can't be certain that this evidence really constitutes absolute certainty of guilt.  The Innocence Project has found that in 25% of the cases where DNA evidence has been used to exonerate individuals, those individuals made false confessions to law enforcement.  The reasons are as varied as any: law enforcement threatens to go after the family and friends of the accused, or to take other actions the accused doesn't care to see visited upon himself or his associates.   In any event, the State abuses virtually every power we cede to it in ways we never envisioned, and it is for this reason alone that the death penalty ought to be abolished in order to prevent the possibility that the State will execute more innocent individuals than it already has.   

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Casualties of China’s One Child Policy -

In 1989, the Chinese writer and broadcaster Xinran was in a remote mountain village in Shandong Province having dinner with the headman when she heard cries from an adjoining room, where his daughter-in-law was giving birth. A while later, as the midwife collected her fee, Xinran noticed a movement in the slops bucket. “To my absolute horror,” she recalls, “I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail.” But she was the only one who was shocked. “It’s not a child,” the headman’s wife told her. “If it was, we’d be looking after it, wouldn’t we? It’s a girl baby, and we can’t keep it.”

The traditional Chinese belief that, as Xinran puts it, “you do not count as a human being unless you have a son” to carry on the family line has been severely intensified by the Communist government’s one-child policy, promulgated in 1979 in an effort to control the country’s population growth. Since having more than one child became illegal in many areas, families choose to get rid of girl after girl until the desired male child is born.

Xinran sees painful evidence of this on a train trip when she meets a husband traveling with his wife and their little daughter. As the train is leaving the station, she looks out the window and sees the child sitting alone on the platform. Later she discovers that these seemingly devoted parents have abandoned their daughter — the fourth to be jettisoned in this way — in hopes that the next child the mother bears will be a boy. The Chinese call such people “extra birth guerrillas,” since they are trying to start over in places where no one will know them or their family history.

The author of “The Good Women of China” and other books that have been translated into English, Xinran was a radio journalist in Nanjing until moving to Britain in 1997. Before her departure, her program for women, “Words on the Night Breeze,” had millions of listeners: at that time, few Chinese owned televisions and many were illiterate, so radio journalists reached far more people than their colleagues on television or at newspapers. Xinran received hundreds of letters and phone calls, and told some of her correspondents’ harrowing stories on air.

Her program — and now this book —gave a voice to some of the poorest women in Chinese society, whose stories would otherwise never be heard. Among them are women like Kumei, a dishwasher who twice tried to kill herself because she’d been forced to drown her baby daughters. When a child is born, Kumei explains, the midwife prepares a bowl of warm water — called Killing Trouble water, for drowning the child if it’s a girl, or Watering the Roots bath, for washing him if it’s a boy.

Xinran also investigates Chinese orphanages, for many of which the word “Dickensian” would be totally inadequate. The children abandoned there are almost always girls, and they regularly arrive with burns between their legs, marks made as the midwife holds the newborn under an oil lamp to check her sex. Mothers forced to abandon their babies often leave mementos in their clothing, hoping the children will be able to trace them later on, but the orphanages routinely throw these sad tokens away.

“Message From an Unknown Chinese Mother” is full of heart-rending tales. They are raw and shocking, simply told and augmented with passages that provide information about matters like the one-child policy, the history of orphanages and Chinese adoption laws.

Xinran (who has founded a charity called the Mothers’ Bridge of Love, for Western families who adopt Chinese children) is so clearly well intentioned that it seems churlish to snipe at her. Nevertheless, sometimes her repeated references to her own emotional reactions, like breaking down in tears because her own mother never hugged her, become a little hard to take. One can imagine her being very comfortable on Oprah Winfrey’s sofa. She also reprints gushing letters sent to her by adoptive mothers. Then again, it’s quite possible that Xinran means for her book to be judged not as a piece of literature but as a polemic. And it is a very powerful polemic indeed.

Casualties of China’s One Child Policy -

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs -

On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else – more important and far-reaching – was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.

During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.

The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller’s cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico’s gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 – up 1% on the week of the court settlement.

The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the “legal” banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars – the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world – around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.

Read Full Article Here...

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs -

NY Times contributor confirms California rainwater 181 times above drinking water standards for radioactive iodine-131 -

NY Times contributor confirms California rainwater 181 times above drinking water standards for radioactive iodine-131 -

Under Fire as Radiation Is Found in Milk, Rain, Bay Citizen, April 1, 2011:

Federal officials have still not published any official data on nuclear fallout from Japan disaster

[Emphasis Added]

… Radiation from Japan rained on Berkeley during recent storms at levels that exceeded drinking water standards by 181 times and has been detected in multiple milk samples…

Radiation falling with rain can cover grass that is eaten by cows and other animals. It can also fall on food crops or accumulate in reservoirs that are used for irrigation or drinking water. Seafood can also be affected. …

A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours a week ago. …

The levels exceeded federal drinking water thresholds, known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCL, by as much as 181 times. …

Patty Lovera, assistant director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch:

“The official mantra from a lot of folks in government is, ‘Oh, it’s OK in low levels.’”

“But low levels add up. We would like to see a more coherent strategy for monitoring air and water in agricultural areas and then using that data to come up with a plan, if you need one, to go look at the food system.”

Read the report here.

Bay Citizen via NY Times here.

Speculators, Cartels and Myths of Scarcity: How War Pushes up the Price of Oil -

By Dean Henderson - Global Research

Last week, as if to justify his Libyan crusade, President Obama echoed the prevailing “peak oil” myth, stating that “we must accept the new reality that from here on out, demand for oil will always exceed supply”. It was music to the ears of the Rockefeller/Rothschild energy cartel and tax-dodger oil traders in Zug, Switzerland alike. Both know full well that oil companies pay around $18/barrel to get crude out of the ground.

Big Oil rings up its usual quarterly record profit, speculators led by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley tack on another $50/barrel and people get gouged at the gas pump. Governments “tighten their belts”, economies contract and the myth of scarcity (root word: scare) encourages a race to the bottom for the global masses, alongside an historical concentration of power and wealth by the well-fed and fueled global elite.

A day after Obama’s endorsement of concentrated corporate power and casino capitalism, the US Department of Energy reported that the main US oil stage depot at Cushing, Oklahoma was holding 41.9 million barrels of crude oil, very near its capacity of 44 million barrels. In other words, the US is awash in crude oil.

Here in South Dakota, the USDA announced that farmers plan to plant an additional 850,000 acres of corn- the most since 1931. According to a March 10 bulletin from USDA, Brazil’s corn crop is 2 million tons higher than last year. Yet corn futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange trade at record prices.

According to the same USDA report, “U.S. wheat ending stocks for 2010/11 are projected higher this month on reduced export prospects. Projected exports are lowered 25 million bushels with increased world supplies of high quality wheat, particularly in Australia, and a slower-than-expected pace of U.S. shipments heading into the final quarter of the wheat marketing year.” Yet wheat futures hover near record highs.

There is nothing alarming in the report about supplies of beef, poultry, eggs, milk, sugar or rice either. Yet food prices continue to skyrocket.

The global elite know that both food and energy are paramount to life. Control over these two most basic needs means control over people.

After the 2008 acquisitions of Swift, Smithfield and National Beef Packers by Brazilian meat-packer JBS, there are three conglomerates that control over 80% of beef-packing in the US – Tyson, Cargill and JBS. These same companies control most of the burgeoning cattle feedlot industry centered in SW Kansas and SE Colorado. They also dominate the pork, chicken and turkey industries. Cargill is the largest grain processor on the planet, handling a full one-half of global grain supplies.
Four giant companies are making a play to own not just all the oil, but virtually all energy sources on the planet. In my book, Big Oil & Their Bankers…I dub them the Four Horsemen – Royal Dutch/Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco and BP Amoco.
These companies control crude oil from the Saudi well-head to the American gas pump and profit from every step of processing, shipping and marketing in between. While reactionary Republicans blame environmentalists for the lack of US oil production, it was these oil giants who capped permitted wells in Texas and Louisiana and moved production to the Middle East – where Bangladeshi, Filipino and Yemeni workers are paid $1/day to work the oil rigs.
Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil are the heaviest and most vertically integrated of the Four Horsemen. These behemoths have led the charge towards horizontal integration within the energy industry, investing heavily in natural gas, coal and uranium resources.

Speculators, Cartels and Myths of Scarcity: How War Pushes up the Price of Oil -

Anarcho-Misogyny, Race, Religion, and Feminism

Anarcho-misogyny is not merely confined to the repudiation of feminism; rather, it is a comprehensive approach to all forms of privilege within the law, or any and all ideological advocacy of privilege for groups and classes.  As such, anarcho-misogyny rejects all forms of bigotry within the law, and all forms of privilege based on anything other than individual effort and achievement. 

Anarcho-misogyny is not merely confined to the repudiation of feminism; rather, it is a comprehensive approach to all forms of privilege within the law, or any and all ideological advocacy of privilege for groups and classes.  As such, anarcho-misogyny rejects all forms of bigotry, and all forms of privilege based on anything other than individual effort and achievement.”

                                    -Anarcho-Misogyny Refined

Anarcho-misogyny, then, recognizes that inequality is a part of human society, but we only acknowledge legitimate or rightful inequalities as those arising from human effort and labor.  If you work harder, smarter, and gain something of an advanced standing in capital, you are justifiably elevated above those who have not worked as hard or as smart.  There are important conditions to be placed on this, however: anarcho-misogyny rejects fraud as a means of gaining capital. 

Additionally, anarcho-misogyny recognizes difference, but it does not accept that the law should acknowledge difference based on class, gender, orientation, race, religion, or any other classification.  We do not posit that there is any one correct approach to a particular problem; we merely rule out bases or justifications for approaches that do not respect the individual on his or her merits.  In essence, we advocate for any approach that respects the content of character above the color of skin, the sex or gender of the individual, his or her religion, creed, ethnicity, orientation, etceteras. 

We reject privilege and espouse rights, equally held by all before a system of law that shows no partiality.  The fact that you possess the same rights as anyone else does not mean that your distinct identity is obliterated; quite the contrary, your unique identity is yours to have and to hold as you see fit.  We simply reject the notion that it can form the basis of privilege that elevates you above the law relative to other people.

With respect to racial ideologies, many of which manifest themselves as separatist in their approach, we reject such approaches out of hand.  In a stateless society, racial ideologues hope for separatist societies to emerge.  There may be a black community here, a white community there, and a Jewish or Muslim community over there.  Anarcho-misogyny rejects such approaches precisely because they are unworkable in a larger framework that recognizes fundamental rights undiluted by privilege.

One of those fundamental rights is the right to move freely without worrying about borders or oppressive police apparatuses.  Racial puritanism by its very nature gives rise to separatist approaches, and those separatist approaches lead to police apparatuses designed to keep those who are other out or separated from the larger community.  Laws against miscegenation, against interracial relationships, against mixed social-settings, and land titles or deeds that restrict the resale of land to a certain race are completely incompatible with the stateless approach we seek. 

Individual self-determination and freedom, borne out of the right to form voluntary associations as one sees fit regardless of how others may feel, is at the heart of anarcho-misogyny.  You may marry whomever you seek to marry, engage in romantic relationships with whomever you see fit to pursue such attachments with, and you may travel wherever you like without fear of encountering restrictions on your free movement. 

The right to move freely within states is widely recognized as a fundamental right.  In the United States, various state restrictions or discouragements of free movement in the form of oppressive regulation have been struck down, as in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).  To say on the one hand that you are an anarchist, and on the other that you support voluntary associations as the basis for communities that would give rise to involuntary restrictions on free movement, is utterly contradictory and illogical. 

Moreover, it is an invitation to war.  When goods do not cross borders, the saying goes, armies do.  At the heart of our economic approach is agorism, and given agorism’s foundation in voluntaryism, any approach that leads to restrictions on free movement of either individuals or goods is one that defeats the entire purpose of stateless societies: to remove mechanisms of force and aggression typically associated with states.  Codified within the constitutions and case law of states from the United States to the European Union to various others is an idea that freedom of movement within the state is a fundamental right of the state’s citizens.  Why, then, would we exchange the freedom to move within states for the restriction against free movements in a stateless society? 

The net result of any racial ideology or theory in application is the construction of privilege for the preferred race at the expense of the free movement and the overall liberties of others.  Anarcho-misogyny rejects this completely.  Semantic distinctions, which give rise to the notion that a racial separatist will enter into voluntary associations with other racial separatists without seeking to erect communities based on black or white privilege, strain credulity entirely. 

The entire goal of the racial ideologue is to construct a society in which his kind can have greater access to liberty, freedom, and self-determination than those outside of his kind.  Privilege is the reality that racists seek.  The end result of any society that entertains the notion that rights cover racist speech and advocacy is descent into privileged existence for a lucky few, with genocide and second-class status for everyone else.

Anarcho-misogyny absolutely and totally denies the validity of this approach, but we go further in dismissing out of hand those ideologies that claim religion as a cover for their advocacy of racial privilege.  I speak, of course, of those religions like Judaism and Islam, not to mention certain schools of Christianity, all of which are predicated on the idea that God has chosen certain groups above others.  Assigning privilege a divine origin does not legitimate genocidal or racially exclusive conduct. 

Force carries with it the potential for reciprocal action, and those societies that employ it ultimately make for themselves a bed of fire.  The nation of Israel, and those Islamic nations that surround it, are absolutely and unequivocally racial in their outlooks.  To some extent, Christianity is not racial, given the repudiation of race, class, and gender distinction contained with Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28. 

However, Christianity, in its failure to repudiate racial thought entirely by rejecting categorically the Jewish claims of superiority through divine designation, is itself tainted.  Moreover, the reality of Christianity’s history is such that no one can avoid passing harsh judgment on the ideology due to the actions of those who professed to put Christianity into actual practice.  Pogroms, crusades, genocides, and an utter disregard for the right of others to worship freely have been the defining attributes of the three major religions throughout human history. 

We in the anarcho-misogynist camps do not judge the theory; we examine the application and come to our conclusions.  Many theories and belief systems appear benign enough on the surface, perhaps even meritorious in their dismissal of privilege based on race, class, and gender, but they are ultimately revealed in the actions of their proponents to be utterly malignant.  Just as the feminists protest that you cannot judge the entirety of their ranks by the actions of a select few, those within religion protest that you cannot judge them as individuals by the worst examples of their kind.  The answer, quite simply, is that we can and we must judge ideologies by the extremes they produce. 

Force carries with it the potential for reciprocal action, and those societies that employ it ultimately make for themselves a bed of fire.  The nation of Israel, and those Islamic nations that surround it, are absolutely and unequivocally racial in their outlooks.  To some extent, Christianity is not racial, given the repudiation of race, class, and gender distinction contained with Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28. 

However, Christianity, in its failure to repudiate racial thought entirely by rejecting categorically the Jewish claims of superiority through divine designation, is itself tainted.  Moreover, the reality of Christianity’s history is such that no one can avoid passing harsh judgment on the ideology due to the actions of those who professed to put Christianity into actual practice.  Pogroms, crusades, genocides, and an utter disregard for the right of others to worship freely have been the defining attributes of the three major religions throughout human history. 

We in the anarcho-misogynist camps do not judge the theory; we examine the application and come to our conclusions.  Many theories and belief systems appear benign enough on the surface, perhaps even meritorious in their dismissal of privilege based on race, class, and gender, but they are ultimately revealed in the actions of their proponents to be utterly malignant.  Just as the feminists protest that you cannot judge the entirety of their ranks by the actions of a select few, those within religion protest that you cannot judge them as individuals by the worst examples of their kind.  The answer, quite simply, is that we can and we must judge ideologies by the extremes they produce. 

I am a firm believer in God, and in Christ, and in salvation through Christ by God.  I reject categorically the idea that my God, my Creator, who has guided my life through every struggle, shows preference for one man over another by virtue of his skin color or his racial background.  Simply put, if my God commands me to avoid showing partiality to any man because He Himself does not show partiality to any man, then how am I to believe that He can arbitrarily elevate an entire race to privilege above others to the point of legitimating the genocidal conduct of that race towards other, lesser races. 

I reject this as antithetical to my own humanity.  To be clear, if I am Amalekite as a result, I am proudly Amalekite.  Between Joshua 6 and Joshua 12, a chronicle of genocides supposedly endorsed by God Himself is contained.  If the Old Testament is credible, then the Israelites systematically slaughtered every man, woman, and child in city after city.  From Deuteronomy 20:14 and 21:10-14, we see that women outside of the Jewish race whose people were conquered were little more than sexual chattel, depending on the whim of their male captors. 

The same elevation of race is present in Islam, as the Muslims believe that Ishmael rather than Isaac continued the legacy of Abraham.  Arabs and Muslims trace their genesis to Ishmael, and modern Islam is run through with hatred of the Jewish race and an endorsement of the Arab Muslim’s claim to privilege and supremacy. 

When one looks at religion, and understands that it is predicated on the perpetuation of privilege for a race under the guise of religious freedom, one has a moral and ethical duty to reject that religion out of hand.  Racial ideology, positing as it does a lesser humanity for groups outside of the favored race, does not achieve legitimacy because it is put forth in the form of a religion. 

God endows all men with rights, and while Islam, Judaism, and Christianity each contained statements of inclusivity, their histories speak for themselves.  As such, anarcho-misogyny rejects their modern incarnations and recognizes each as a danger to humanity and as threat to just laws based on equal standing for all men. All statements of inclusivity within these religions are contingent upon the adoption of some behavior or conduct that acknowledges the merit of the particular religious thought in question.  For Judaism, you must conform to the Noahide laws.  For Islam, you must convert outright or exist in subjugation to Muslims.  For Christianity, the obliteration of racial gender, social, and economic status is contingent entirely on the acceptance of Christ.  Simply put, none of these religions expresses in theory or in practice any real respect for the right of the individual to worship according to his or her own conscience. 

Moreover, what we must all recognize about religion is the power of individual interpretation on religion.  We do not have merely a few hundred or a few thousand denominations within each of the major religions.  The simple truth is that each individual brings with him his own set of preconceptions upon exposure to religious dogma, and he takes away his own peculiar set of interpretations.  We have billions of individuals who are their own denominations.  Schism is a reality. 

When the religious criterion is one of racial exclusivity or privilege before God based on His racial preference, the dangers are clear: racial ideology dehumanizes others outside of the chosen people.  You may visit atrocities on those others the same way you would slaughter an animal.  They do not have the same rights or standing before God or the law that you possess as a member of the chosen.  To some degree, an individual may convert to Islam or Judaism, but with respect to the latter, one may never become fully Jewish. 

The major religions are run through with separatism, be it prohibitions against intermarriage, or miscegenation, or association.  The fact that they have become somewhat diluted over time in their approach, and less concentrated in their zealotry, does not change the essential truth that each religion disdains the other and its followers. 

Feminism has accomplished much the same thing in its dehumanization of men and the unborn.  More than any other ideology, feminism is the elevation of gender to a privileged status before the law. Despite the assertions of feminists that they seek equality, their statements about mothers and women in positions of leadership reveal utter contempt for men.  Take the view of Jane Fonda, expressing her outlook for the future in June 2008 at a meeting in Asheville, North Carolina:

The profound structural changes we need simply will not happen until
women move into leadership positions — as women.”

On the one hand, feminists deny gender differences are innate, and assert
that this is a near universal outlook among their kind, but like those aforementioned religions, with their individual denominations, feminism cannot rule out the reality that self-proclaimed feminists defy such notions with their utterances, as in the following statements from Fonda at that same meeting:

It’s not that women are morally superior to men—they just don’t have their masculinity to prove,” Fonda asserted, triggering more cheers from the audience. 

“Whereas men’s style of leadership tends to be elitist, for women, leadership tends to be circular and inclusive. 

            Really?  Has their ever been a male in the upper echelons of NOW?  If so, after a prolonged search, I have yet to locate any evidence of his existence.  The officers of NOW, as nearly as I can tell after a look through NOW’s history, have been exclusively women, despite the fact inclusivity argument advanced by Fonda and idea that feminism is for everybody.  The truth of the matter is that in female advocacy groups, diversity does not encompass males in management or executive positions. 

            In much the same way that Christian Identity or the Aryan Brotherhood would never have a Jew among their upper ranks, NOW will never tolerate a male among their officers.  It is that simple. Deeply ingrained within racial and gender ideologies is an idea of innate superiority, that some are better suited than others to address problems simply virtue of their race or gender:

            “Next, Fonda asked how many in the Asheville audience were familiar with
            the works of Eckert Tolle, prompting many to raise their hands.

She noted that Tolle contends that “the new consciousness is rising as the old consciousness is fading.” Moreover, she said Tolle believes that women “will be the ones to lead the new consciousness” because, he says, “it is harder for the ego to take root in the female than the male” because of innate gender differences in which the ego dominates in men.” 

            Just as racial ideology assigns blame owing to the innate characteristics of Jews and Arabs, or white Europeans and Caucasoids, feminism assigns blame owing to the “innate gender differences in which the ego dominates in men.”  Feminists will recoil and protest that this is not their feminism, but the reality of the matter is that their reflexive reaction defies historical reality in much the same way that the protestations of moderate religious folk do.  Christians today will almost universally denounce the Crusades as Un-Christian, but the simple truth is this: for the time and age during which the Crusades took place, a Crusade was as Christian as it got. 

            So it is today with terrorism and Islam in certain parts of the world, and racial denigration and Judaism in Israel.  We are entitled to do this, because God wills it and because He has commanded us, as His people, to carry this out.  It is a purely religious as it can be.  Fonda talks about females rising to leadership positions in much the same way, with an almost religious fervor, speaking of a new consciousness that men are innately ill-equipped to bring into reality because of their genetic susceptibility to ego domination. 

            One might say that feminism hasn’t yet resulted in a holocaust, but the reality of the matter is that it has: take a look at the nearly 50 million dead human beings whose lives were snuffed out in the womb.  Feminism, like racism, relies on office talk to legitimate horrific abuses against human life and the sanctity thereof. 

In Hannah Arendt's book, "Eichmann in Jerusalem," Eichmann was asked, "Was it difficult for you to send these tens of thousands of people to their death?" And Eichmann answered very candidly, "To tell you the truth, it was easy. Our language made it easy."

His interviewer asked what that language was, and Eichmann said, "My fellow officers and I coined our own name for our language. We called it amtssprache - 'office talk.'" When asked for examples, Eichmann said, "It's basically a language in which you deny responsibility for your actions. So if anybody says, 'Why did you do it?' you say, 'I had to.' 'Why did you have to?' 'Superiors' orders. Company policy. It's the law.'"

Futhermore, all correspondence referring to the matter was subject to rigid “language rules,” and, except in the reports from Einsatzgruppen, it is rare to find documents in which such bald words as “extermination,” liquidation,” or “killing” occur.  The prescribed code names for killing were “final solution,”  “evacuation” (Aussiedlung), and “special treatment” (Sonderbehandlung); deportation-unless it involved Jews directed to Theresienstadt, the “old people’s ghetto” for privileged Jews, in which case it was called “change of residence”-received the names of “resettlement” (Umsiedlung), and “labor in the East” (Arbietseinsatz im Osten)…

            Ingrained within racial and religious ideology is a semantic flexibility that enables one to rationalize the most horrific of actions against those who are not privileged to possess the same rights or standing within the law due to their otherness.  The fact that the Holy Writ or text upon which such ideologies rest may contain within in conflicting statements and even outright repudiation of such semantics is irrelevant; anarcho-misogyny judges ideologies by what they produce in action, not what they say in theory or in text. 

            A blastocyst or a fetus is no longer a human undergoing a metamorphosis through a human stage of development, even though those of us who are alive were all fetuses and blastocysts at one time.  In point of fact, feminism posits that blastocysts and fetuses are not even human at all; rather, they are simple and mere protoplasm. 

            An Gentile is no longer human; he is referred with the same lexicographical distinction that the Hebrew reserves for cattle.  In clearer terms, Gentile souls are said to have Satanic qualities while Jewish souls are wholly holy.  In the Arab world, Jews are routinely depicted as cannibals and rats.  The point of bigotry as a form of ideology is to systematically dehumanize those you hate, and in doing so, to form the legitimizing of whatever atrocities you visit upon their kind. 

            It is not sufficient to simply note that God created all of us, and to note that the same God who rewards a prostitute for taking mercy on a panting dog in Muslim tradition would doubtless reward mercy towards humans on a greater level.   No, we have to hate.  We have to define ourselves as qualitatively other, to set ourselves apart from Them, whoever they are, and we must do this in order to gin up within ourselves a hateful fervor and potent anger sufficient to consume our enemies. 

            Anarcho-misogyny rejects this diseased reasoning entirely to say that a human being, regardless of his race or religion, has the right to his life, his liberty, and his property.  Moreover, we stipulate to this across every boundary, including socio-economic class, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.  We esteem humans for their humanity, and we reject the notion that the law ought to be perverted into a means of relegating some humans to a lesser standing where their lives, their liberties, and the property are concerned.  Anarcho-misogyny rejects privilege founded within the law, acknowledges inequality from meritorious action or labor, and totally rejects the notion that those who are unwilling to commit to the idea that rights and equality of standing before the law are mutually shared across all sub-classifications of humanity are entitled to the protection of rights. 

            To allow a racist, or a feminist, or any other bigot the ability to use individual rights as a shield under which to advance their exclusionary doctrines is to throw open the gates of the city to a Trojan Horse.  It is suicide for free communities founded on voluntary association, stateless organization, and a basic commitment to human rights and equality before the law.  If the racist or the feminist has their way, the law is perverted into a means of ensuring inequality and privilege rather as opposed to a means of ensuring that we are bound to common ideals and principles, chief among these being the notion that the law cannot legitimately carve out privileges or exceptions for some at the expense of others. 

            We brook no compromise with such ideologies.