Facebook Video - Cops Actually Being Abused By The People They Arrested!

This was posted last night on face book but yanked off by I don't know maybe face book. Share it this is the crap police have to put up with now.
Posted by Mickey Elrod on Monday, January 12, 2015

Here's something you won't see that often in the news these days. Just came across this interesting video, shared by a friend on Facebook; but seems to have been filmed and originally posted by somebody else, who obviously also posted it to his own Facebook page. No further comment...

The Big B*lls of Dick Cheney. Of course!!!

You know, I said to myself that I was definitely not going to blog about this, (being someone who I guarantee they know that I know the real truth behind 9/11 and the Iraq war), because I know it is kind of like what these criminals want.
As, I also know, that they sort of like get-off on it, and really did not want to give these knuckleheads any attention, or satisfaction, to make them think they are bothering or annoying me. But, never-the-less, here goes...
I guess, many know about the sh*t that Cheney has been talking about as of late, in the news and all, regarding his criticism of Obama and Iraq. Of course. Obama and Pelosi took the prosecution of these guys off the table! End of story. Basically, what Obama and Pelosi were saying, for whatever reason, is that in reality, they really did not give a sh*t! And so, Cheney for example, in his own psychotic sort of way, is livid! He knows he deserves to be prosecuted. So, with all due respect to President Obama, he sort of brought it on himself. And, these guys know it. It's all bullsh*t. In fact, Cheney is now considered a freakin' war criminal (and rightly so) in about a dozen countries outside the United States. In other words, if he steps one foot on their soil, they will arrest his ass!!! Something, that many of our pathetic leaders should have done a long time ago.
So, of course he's talking sh*t, and thumbing his nose at the president.
I mean, deliberately attempting to come across as a psychopath and a criminal? What is up with that? And, with all due respect, I always kinda' wondered about Bush and Rumsfeld, myself, (and certain other individuals within the administration, to be totally honest).
They look at Obama as a weak president. And, with all due respect once again, they unfortunately may very well be right. But, definitely not in the way that they try to portray it; Because, Obama and Pelosi, and the full Democratically controlled Senate and Congress at the time, should have prosecuted their ass, like the majority of the American people who voted them into power (including myself) wanted them to do, with Obama at the lead. Just like those of us who voted for them, wanted Single-Payer, National Health Care, like most of the other civilized, industrial countries, that the President should have also taken the lead and insisted on, like he had promised when he ran for President in the first place.
So, now the mainstream news media is playing-up this phony, ridiculous, hard on the ears, Obama is weak on Iraq story to the hilt. Of course! Once again. This is the sorry state of our country right now. Of course. It's part of the law of nature. That's why you have all this senseless violence and all. Look at those who are supposed to be our role models. Are you kiddin' me? You know, I am not even particularly very religous and all, but there is a very interesting, wise, and insightful passage in the Book of Proverbs that goes: "To show partiality in judgement is not good. He who says to the wicked man, 'You are just'-men will curse him, people will denounce him; But those who convict the evil doer will fare well, and on them will come the blessing of prosperity." -Prov. 24: 23-25
And these guys particularly, are "denouncing" Obama now. Wow. Incredible stuff...



Great article here, in relation to the recent events in the news regarding Dick Cheney and the Iraq war. A definite must read...

BlueNationReview.com - Writing Dick Cheney's Obituary

And by the way, is it me, or does Dick Cheney remind anyone else of "The Penguin", from the Batman series? Slap one of those tiparillo cigars in the side of his mouth while he's talking sh*t and wallah, you got the Penguin!!! Right? I mean, he even kinda' talks like im', doesn't he? "Yea, Obama should be impeached. He's a weak president. We should have thrown more bystanders in Guantanimo and continue to hold them indefinitely. They don't deserve a fair trial. After all, they're terrorists. We should continue to keep them from their families and loved ones, without any recourse. I really enjoyed watching those suckers drown while they were being water boarded. Yea, that's the ticket. Obama's a weak president for not lining them all up and shooting them right now, so nobody can hear their real story, I mean, so we don't look like a weak nation. Yea, that's the ticket. So we don't look weak. Prosecute me if you can, you bunch of pathetic morons!!!"
I also just want to mention here, because I know how these characters (and those who are connected to them) think; is that, I just want to make clear, that I am not promoting any kind of violence at all against any one of these knuckleheads. They should get a fair trial like anyone else. Although, I doubt very much that will ever happen. Unless, one of them happens to enter one of the countries that has them wanted for war crimes. Ooops...

"INTO THE WEST" - Annie Lennox

Song from the soundtrack (and ending credits) to the movie based on JRR Tolkein's: "Lord of The Rings-Return of The King"; that I just happened to watch again on TV.
Brings back memories already. Like where I was at that time in my life when I first watched it, bought and watched the DVD, listened to the CD soundtrack, etc.

Christmas Time Is Here Again...

"Bah, humbug!" O.K. maybe not...

Rep. Alan Grayson & The Drone Strike Briefing in Congress...

The Miracle Worker (The Helen Keller Story)

This is what seems wise: "Be compassionate as God is compassionate... When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you..." -Lk 6:36; 14:13-14
Helen Keller lost her sight and her hearing at a very young age; and so this poor, little innocent thing, became so scared, angry, and frustrated, because she could not communicate with the outside world anymore. And it would seem, that God sent a compassionate, understanding, and wise angel, (in the form of Ann Sullivan), who loved her very much, and changed her life.
When I think of complaining, I remember this story, and this poor little girl; and these two beautiful souls...

The Afterlife Investigations

Absolutely incredible and fascinating documentary, worth watching, for anyone with an open mind.
With that said, I think one still has to be very careful regarding anything dealing with the supernatural.
For instance. I definately would not recommend anyone experimenting with a Ouji board, for example.
Like anything else, one has to use common sense, and good judgement. Because, with most of these documentaries dealing with the afterlife, the supernatural, and the like, is that, they all too often fail to recognize, that there very well may be such a thing as "evil" on the other side, as well. For instance. Hitler himself, was into the paranormal; as well as, the occult. And was extremely evil. And deceitful. (A big part of the very nature of evil, and the demonic realm). And lucky for us, it may have even eventually destroyed him. Ironically. Because, there very well may be certain spiritual laws built-into the very fabric of the universe itself, that he violated. Like mass murder, for example! However, I think God may give a certain discernment, wisdom, guidance, and protection, to those whose heart is in the right place. The Bible itself, (the Christian Old Testament, in particular), gives some good examples of this. Such as, with the stories of Joseph and Daniel for instance. They had some very powerful spiritual gifts. Like, the interpretation of dreams, and being able to see into the future; As well as, a profound psychic insight, which gave them a deep understanding of things, and the like, that they used in a very positive way. And yet, what does it all mean, really? One thing I know for sure though, is that there usually is some kind of price to pay, for those who can see (and understand) things, that most other people cannot. Because, it can often make one a target, by some really deeply disturbed, and criminally-bent individuals. So, it is usually like a mixed blessing. (For instance, criminals who are schizophrenics, for example, often have that side of their brain working, but because they're schizophrenics to begin with, they are usually off in some way, because they are also more often then not, quite delusional. But, never-the less, they can sometimes pick-up on those who are strongly psychic, and when they are extremely evil, they will also quite often target them in some way, because among other things, they are usually afraid that they will be exposed, if they have done something criminal for instance).
Fascinating subject though, whichever way you want to look at it. For sure. And, it could also very well be the reason why so many people down through the ages have used religion as a tool - to manipulate, control, and brainwash people, even into thinking, that what is white is really black, and what is black is really white, and in the same manner, if your a politician with extreme views and beholden to special interest money for instance, they will often try to convince their constituants that what is good (such as social justice and the like), is really bad. Because, it is quite possible that in reality, they are really just schizophrenics! (Without any concern for anyone else except themselves). And, it very well may be one of the reasons why they are so fascinated with religion to begin with, and/or the supernatural, and how (like snake oil salesmen) just see it as a means to an end.
But that is another topic...

Blogger, and Google Chrome...

I noticed recently, that there may be some issues viewing my Blogger profile with Internet Explorer 10. (The latest version of this web-browser, which already comes pre-installed with Windows 8). However, it seems to work just fine using the Google Chrome browser, for some reason. It could be, maybe, that Blogger is more compatible (and possibly works better) with Google Chrome, because Blogger was originally designed by Google, in the first place. (Even though, I have noticed some similar advantages and somewhat better functionality with a couple of my other online accounts as well, which are not Google related at all). So, if you are having some difficulties navigating through my blog, you may want to try viewing it in Google Chrome, if you already have it installed on your computer. If you don't already have it installed, it is free to do so. And I think it is a great alternative to Windows Explorer anyway, which is still probably the most popular, and/or, commonly used browser by those searching the web. Although, from what I understand, Google Chrome has been quickly gaining ground over the years, and is  becoming increasingly more and more popular; As well as, the web-browser of choice, by many...

The Soul of Economies

Being that Delicious is going thru some changes, and from what I understand, is removing the Stack feature, I wanted to save this particular web page bookmark, in another format, like this blog. The following is an excerpt (and first installment) from what I would have to say has got to be just about the most brilliantly written economic and business related book of all time. I think it is absolutely pure genius, and a must read.
It is called: "The Soul of Economies", by Breton & Largent. No other book in its field that I have read so far even comes close; Including works by the great economic thinkers and writers, such as Adam Smith, etc. I strongly believe, that the principles put forth in this book are so powerful, that if ever fully implemented (and realised) on a large scale, our country (and our world, for that matter) would drastically change for the better;
And not just for the few, but for every respectable person on the planet...
Just click the link at the end of this particular section of the article, to bring you to the Business Spirit Journal website, that contains other excerpts from this fantastic work...

The Soul of Economies:The Power of Philosophies to Transform Economic Life by Denise Breton & Christopher Largent

The Basics of Economic Systems
According to which premise we choose, we define the fundamentals of economic life. Our economic premises and assumptions—whether of scarcity or of anti-scarcity—give rise to basic economic strategies.

Scarcity-based economies build strategies around the possession of material goods, which traditional economic theories categorize into land, labor, and capital. What counts is how much real estate we own, how much money we have, and how many hours we work. Economic strategies involve trading our countables to increase our net value.

The ideal for many, though attained by few, is to own enough land and capital so that we don’t have to sell our labor. In other words, we work to buy back our time from economic society, so that economic worries no longer dictate our choices.

With inflation and the insecurity of modern economies, however, the price of economic freedom goes up, and the period of indenture increases. Philosopher John Locke’s insistence that people possess their own labor becomes an illusion. Instead, we lease our labor from the economy with an option to buy, though we never seem to collect enough assets to complete the purchase. The economy turns into a company town like those of the early 20th century, in which the company—in this case, the economy—owns us, and all we do is get “another day older and deeper in debt.”

The danger with this strategy is that it tends economies toward feudalism. By making freedom cost more, scarcity-economies reduce societies to two classes: the few in power and the many who are economically disenfranchised. Both groups go to their graves burdened by money. Both shortchange themselves because of the economic model.

For example, since the decisions of both rich and poor are limited by fears about scarcity, their talents in other areas go untapped. How many Leonardos, Mozarts, or Einsteins have come and gone undeveloped, because money matters took precedence in their lives? The poor don’t have time for frills such as education, while the privileged often push aside their talents in order to acquire wealth. They get hooked on getting more, long after their needs are met. In scarcity-based economies, money-concerns make it hard for people to pursue their life’s calling. Individual gifts go to waste.

Applying capitalist or socialist terms to such economies doesn’t make them less feudal or less wasteful of human talents. In fact, scarcity-based economies develop precisely the economic imbalances that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx railed against.

Unfortunately, Smith and Marx didn’t challenge the scarcity-premise but focused on different ways of distributing goods. In practice, however, distribution strategies haven’t prevented the economic poles from widening, since they don’t challenge the premise that causes the gap. The root assumption that scarcity rules economies remained unquestioned.

Economies Based On Creativity and Knowledge
If, in contrast to scarcity, economies build on creativity and know-how, they focus less on things and more on how we manage things. Our economic roles shift from possessors to stewards, from consumers to managers. Fixed quantities of things no longer dictate our actions. “Energy and materials are limiting factors,” Boulding writes, “not creative or formative factors.” The “limiting factors” pose economic challenges; the “creative or formative factors” meet those challenges.

Because we can be creative whether we own things or not, ownership isn’t the primary concern. Not that we should stop owning what we need to live and work. Historically, as private ownership became possible for more people, it increased economic independence from kings, states, aristocracies, and plutocracies.

But the strategy of owning as much as possible misses the economic mark. The game of Monopoly isn’t a model of how economies work but an analysis of how they fail. The Depression of the ’30s inspired Monopoly’s creator to invent the game to show where inflated ownerships lead. Monopoly ends when one player dominates the board, having caused the rest to go bankrupt. No further exchange can occur when all but one player is broke. The more economies resemble Monopoly, the closer they are to a breakdown. No more game.

By contrast, successful economies keep exchange going, enhancing it wherever possible. The more players participate, the more diverse the system. The stronger and better all the players are, the more each has to offer. Exchange increases. The whole system is enriched.

By establishing a system of exchange, economies link problems with solutions, needs with know-how. What counts isn’t so much the things available—the fixed stock of billiard balls - but the process of creativity and the flow of knowledge. How does the process work?

a) What’s common to all. In the first place, know-how gives everyone equal access to an economy’s main source of wealth. We can all cultivate knowledge and work with it creatively. The system in turn protects what each of us has to offer and then explores ways to enhance this primary resource.

For instance, knowledge-based economies depend on education. Education becomes top priority, even if it means paying people to go to school, as many companies are now doing. What’s more, education isn’t limited to business, math, and the sciences. Creativity blossoms the more we rediscover our home in the realm of ideas. Ideas spark our imagination. They also give us reasons to care—beyond the reason to make money.

Not that making money is wrong, it’s just inadequate to meet today’s economic challenges. The money-reason hasn’t, for instance, made top executives care about the environment, the quality of life, or the welfare of future generations. Yet these factors are central to good household management.

Fortunately, there are disciplines that inspire creativity and caring on wider levels. Religion, philosophy, literature, history, and the arts touch us where balance sheets can’t. By enlarging our minds, these disciplines enlarge our worlds, making us enduringly rich, as Viktor Frankl discovered even in concentration camps. The happy byproduct is that they also extend our economies’ resources. The more we explore our potential on intellectual and spiritual levels, the more insight and creativity we bring to how we manage our households.

With the information age, then, creativity and knowledge provide a basis for economic equality. Knowledge is our common inheritance. There’s plenty of it, and it’s becoming increasingly accessible to us all.

b) What’s different. But complete equality is achieved only when all differences disappear, which is neither possible nor desirable. Each of us cannot know all there is to know in exactly the same way. Neither would we want to. Economic systems thrive on a diversity of interests and talents, otherwise there would be no reason for exchange.

Which is precisely what we have. Each of us cultivates knowledge differently. No two of us have identical ways of digesting the information available. Even if we did, two people can use the same knowledge quite differently. As Plato noted in the Republic, each person focuses the totality of knowledge in a unique way; each citizen expresses the whole republic through unique skills and talents. Or, as in the philosopher G. W. Leibniz’s theory of monads, each person develops an individualized view of the whole—a distinct window on the world.

Diversity is great for economies. The more diverse a system, the more possibilities it includes for developing new levels of order. By increasing order, diverse systems become more flexible. They include more options for responding to stress. If one method doesn’t work, we have a backup, and more backups behind that. By increasing an economy’s power to overcome scarcity, diversity increases an economy’s chances of survival.

Investors are well aware of the uses of diversity. If we spread our risk by putting money in different places, we’re less vulnerable if any one of them fails. Our whole future doesn’t depend on the success of one venture.

Communities also know something about diversity. A one-company town can become a ghost town overnight if the main employer pulls out. The more businesses a community nurtures, the more stable and secure its economy.

Diversity, therefore, constitutes the second fundamental factor of knowledge-based economies.

The diversity that individuals bring to economies gives economies their strength and durability.

The effect of the first two factors - knowledge and diversity - is that economies free everyone to be creative. The fact that we each don’t have to grow our own food, for example, frees us to put our energies elsewhere according to our abilities and interests. By developing our talents, we can offer something to the system that’s uniquely ours.

c) Systems of exchange. But it’s no fun developing individual talents without ways to exchange them. We want to share our abilities as well as to draw on the abilities of others. There’s “a propensity in human nature to exchange,” Adam Smith wrote, a “disposition to barter.”

Exchange brings economies alive. What’s the use of diversity if we can’t move it around? Economies exist precisely to provide an efficient system through which knowledge can flow. What bees do for flowers, economies do for us. They cross-pollinate our creative abilities, so that something new is always cropping up.

All this cross-pollinating makes economic exchange synergetic. Through exchange, diversity increases diversity. Knowledge, skill, and creativity feed each other to yield possibilities greater than what individuals alone could produce. By exchanging ideas as well as goods and services, economies jump to new levels of prosperity.

By contrast, hoarding, the opposite of exchange, chokes economies. Hoarding works on the fort-premise: acquiring as much as possible provides an illusion of security apart from the system. Even though the system might collapse, at least our private fort will stand.

But the fort-strategy works against economies. The more we hoard, the less exchange occurs and the weaker the entire system becomes. Nor does the strategy achieve the security imagined. If the system fails, the fort hasn’t much future either.

Healthy economies establish security as a function of the whole system. If the system is diverse and exchange ongoing, then the economy is both flexible enough to weather storms and rich enough to provide opportunities for everyone. Security lies in the integral system of exchange, not in fragmenting the system with forts.

d) Mutual benefit. Why should we enter into economic exchange? Because it benefits us to do so. But the benefit isn’t one-sided. Exchange depends on mutual benefit, a concept that Adam Smith adapted from Plato. Either both sides gain, or there’s no exchange. No one freely enters into a relation in which all the benefit goes to the other party.

For this reason, win-win is the only practical and realistic economic strategy. In fact, it’s what we do all the time. Day to day, we don’t demand benefits from others without offering benefits in return. The concept of reciprocity goes to the bone. If others get more than we do, we feel cheated. If we get more than they do, we worry that they feel cheated, in which case we’d lose the chance to do business with them in the future. In the end, we strive for a balance. We want fairness - mutual benefit.

When reciprocity prevails, economies are better off. Mutual benefit increases prosperity on all sides. It builds trust. If we’re not afraid of being ripped off, we do business freely. Trust makes exchange flow, so that the entire system becomes more secure.

The opposite strategy (win-lose) encourages subtle and blatant forms of stealing, plenty of which are legal. Win-lose strategies follow from the premise of scarcity. After all, given limited resources, we can’t all win. Some people and nations must simply go without (as long as it’s not us). But win-lose strategies don’t build economies. Who agrees to such an arrangement? Once burned, who subjects themselves to it again? Who does business with someone who’s out to bilk us? We’ll do it only if we’re forced to - if we have no other choice.

Because win-lose strategies aren’t a form of mutually beneficial exchange, they aren’t intrinsic to economies. Nor are they practical. Quite the reverse. They foster practices that endanger economies. Without contributing anything in return, win-lose strategies siphon off the prosperity that win-win economies produce without contributing anything in return. They drain economies, until we reach the end of the game.

When win-lose practices dominate an economy, we stop trusting both the economy and each other. We all suffer. When exchange isn’t for mutual benefit, we stop exchanging. The game ends.

But the loss to the economy is even greater. Win-lose strategies give us an excuse to abandon our creativity. We lose sight of our powers as givers and only develop our roles as takers. The economy loses more than what’s siphoned out of it. Once again, individual knowledge and talents go to waste.

Two Systems: Which One?
The premises of scarcity on one hand and of creativity on the other set up two contrasting economic systems.

From the scarcity premise, strategies develop that, first, make limited material resources the starting-point.

Second, what passes for diversity are different uses of labor, which depend on how land and capital are distributed - who owns what. Instead of developing individual talents (which diversity does), mere division of labor traps us in dead-end jobs, determined by our place in the economic hierarchy. Creativity isn’t nurtured but squelched; diversity isn’t increased but diminished.

Third, we manipulate the division of land, labor, and capital to own as much as possible. Acquiring is the name of the game, since hoarding secures our private interests.

Fourth, to increase our ownership of limited resources, we struggle to win out over others. Our gain is another’s loss, and vice versa. The system makes us feel and act like thieves, whether we want to or not. It brings out the lowest passions in us and rewards them.

But does this model really work? In his critique of it, the third-century philosopher Porphyry wrote:

“In the light of unlimited desires, even the greatest wealth is but poverty... No fool is satisfied with what he possesses; he rather mourns what he has not... Many have attained wealth, and yet not found release from their troubles but have exchanged them for greater ones. Wherefore philosophers say that nothing is so necessary as to know thoroughly what is unnecessary... [Otherwise] while the pile of wealth is growing bigger, life is growing wretched.”

Fortunately, there are other models for economies and other strategies for acting in them. From the premises of knowledge and creativity, a system develops that, first, includes everyone. Creativity belongs to us all. It comes with being human. Moreover, the knowledge we need to be creative is universally available. And it isn’t scarce. As a resource, it’s unlimited in its potential for growth.

Second, diversity increases as we work creatively. The more we diversify our talents, the stronger our economies grow, which frees us to diversify our talents further.

Third, we interact with the economy not to maximize ownership but to exchange the best we have for the best others have. To keep exchange going, we bring it our best.

Fourth, we do this so that all may benefit. Either we all win, or we all lose. To paraphrase John Donne, every loss to a person or nation diminishes us, while every gain increases us. It’s great prose because it reveals a great truth. It’s how economies work as systems—something more than Monopoly players driving each other out of business.

http://bizspirit.com/bsj/archive/articles/LargentBreton2.html#Anchor-49575

The New Era - A Children's Song / Moonlight Slumbers

I wrote this piece in two parts, or movements. The first part was written in the form of an ensemble. Sort of like in the style of Mozart. I tried to fashion the second part as a musical dreamscape, or soundscape. Hence, the particular images that I had chosen for this slide-show video, that I thought best reflected the mood I was trying to create with the music...