TELL IT LIKE IT IS

Comment

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on September 20, 2009 at 4:55pm

Like the psychiatrist said to the test subject in the sphere... go pee in the corner.

Comment by Paul on September 20, 2009 at 9:56am

Is there room for one more? :^)

Comment by DubleDeuce on September 13, 2009 at 11:08pm

Kevin stated,

<<If you want to make a change, that works, you need to provide a forum for these free personalities to participate.>>

Look at the paragraph below (as ststed in my LAST post) and see my "concern" for the propagation of my ideas. Ideas, properly put forth, will stand on their own merit. A fool cannot see the merits of anothers' ideas when he has attached his mind to an ideologically limiting concept.

<<What people take from this "diatribe" is of NO concern to me. NONE whatsoever. You can take it, you can leave it. But you CAN'T now ignore the points made.>>

The point (on the Avatar) has been made, ad-nauseaum. People either GET IT...or they don't.

The Deuceman

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on June 18, 2009 at 6:59am

DD;

I don't think you will find a person here that will -completely- disagree with your post(s). Historically, the only structure that has retained effectiveness are those whose leadership has claimed (and corrected) -ALL real- past dept. If the controlling personalities will not enforce rules of objective development, the rest of the intelligent community "subordinate" to them, will not accept said leadership either.

What you need to keep in mind, however, is that there are as many "upright citizens" (Free Masons) in those influences as there are sociopath (Skulls). If you want to make a change, that works, you need to provide a forum for these free personalities to participate.

10 paragraphs of 'hot pockets' and burying the thread will not do this.

Comment by DubleDeuce on June 18, 2009 at 1:01am

Well Old Dan Tucker,

I see that you have no ability/desire to read the text of my post so I will dispense with further argument on the matter. I stick by my comments.

BUT! Your approach to an important subject of identity bothers me and it should bother others, As to the sketch of Kaczynski and whether or not it was accurate who cares? The sketch accurate or not is identified with the Unabomber also known as Ted Kaczynski.

I would THINK that anyone with a light colored windbreaker with a hood and dark colored sunglasses walking around in the instant neighborhood would care. I mean, they SHOT this Amadou guy in New York because he was "going for a pack of cigs" and they felt (the POWERS that be) that they would need to expend some 47 rounds of ammo before he was brought down. Never can be TOO careful, too rich, too beautiful, or too well armed in New York, City especially with a "throw out his rights" type like you.

Fortunately the sketch had NO bearing on the identity of the culprit. But in YOUR mind, the same one that attempts to skewer someone who sees history as clearly as the next person, you REFUSE to see another point of view. Using all the fact available to you (or anyone wishing to access the facts) you come up with two notions, 1. that my selection (and reason for selection) of a sketch is somehow CONNECTED with the politics of that sketch when in fact my reason for selection is PRECISELY to demonstrate the incompetence of the authorities hires to protect us. You call that POOR JUDGEMENT. I call it historical irony. And 2. you further state While you have your reasons for not showing your face or using your given name I tend not to give credence to your message because you do not have the moral conviction to show yourself. Whether I have reasons or not to show my face or reveal my name, is of NO CONCERN OF YOURS. It is my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do so. You MIGHT want to read this bit of legal history. Its' title is somewhat cryptic but you will soon be enraged by the audacity of the freedoms and rights that are afforded the average American citizen. And be sure and read the part outlined in Section III A. http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/(ppcl1xqxikf23mqimbm0qh45)/Download.aspx?ID=67130 It will cause you to blow a gasket.

It is one thing to be steeped in the study of history, it is quite another to be TRAPPED by the various prejudices and conventions of the day in which you find your self immersed.

As to my thumbs up for John Brown, I am in rather good comapny. The people of Kansas put a public monument up in his memory. Apparently they are not too soon wanting to forget his deeds or his memory.

Your condescending diatribes presume that we are all sheep Not sheep, but surely not exposed to all aspects of history and critical conclusions about it. What people take from this "diatribe" is of NO concern to me. NONE whatsoever. You can take it, you can leave it. But you CAN'T now ignore the points made. You can argue with them. you can call me names, disagree with my conclusions, tell me that the basis for my conclusions are wrong. But when you sit down and put ALL of the relevant facts together a rather disturbing picture emerges. Once that don't fit neatly with our historic image of ourselves.

As I said earlier, the general opinion is "if the ship of state has not run aground on the rocks, we MUST be going in the right direction". But the facts are this, we move forward as a country with a grand document to prod us and point us in the right direction (The Declaration of Independence) and we THINK because we face the warmth and nurturing of the sun in our journey, that we are surely going in the right direction.

From time to time though, a country must look back on its deeds and ask itself if the direction that our history is pointing us in is the same direction that we think we are going.

I consider it my responsibility to cast a light on that history. What you do with it is YOUR business.

The Deuceman

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on June 17, 2009 at 11:43pm

So,... at what point do we recognize self destructive behavior, as opposed to the suppression of independence, and objective (if uncomfortable) personal opinion (as in the case of : if you voice -any- dissenting opinion within the earshot of -our- company, you will never find a job, anywhere), because in this economy, that we generated, we can do just that!.

Probably has to do with the length of the presentation. The "injured" will not make an attempt to make the statement into a comfortable communication form, to get the information to more people, they will prefer to vent until they are exhausted. See pervious post also ( pic icon is easy to find).

Comment by Bill Tucker on June 17, 2009 at 6:44am

DD,

“You have taken leave to correct the name of this episode twice now. WHY? Are you a history revisionist?” Historical revisionist? Not hardly, accurate historian most definitely.
History is written by the victors not by the defeated. Was slavery at the root of the division between North and South, most definitely. It was not why the vast majority of Southern men joined the Army of the Confederacy in a war against the Union. The states of the Confederacy seceded from the Union and formed their own country. That by definition is not a Civil war. That is not historical revisionism that is fact. Unless you can explain why people who did not own slaves fought to uphold the institution of slavery then you argument is without basis. Support for secession from the Union was broad, because it was about State’s rights not slavery.

“I am not sure why you think this is a necessary mea culpa to be put in place in this conversation.” To defend the Southern position many would assume racial bias, as I am not racially biased but simply a historian I felt it necessary, if you are not one of the many who would assume racial bias then consider the point addressed. Your facts do not explain the events the way you contend that they do.

You hold John Brown as a hero, an “active abolitionist”, who like Kaczynski wanted to open our eyes. Both men wanted to force their point of view on the populace at large which is not democratic but terrorism. John Brown was at least honorable enough to want to fight openly for his beliefs, while Kaczynski hid in a cabin and mailed bombs. Why can you not see how utterly cowardly and totally self centered that is? Kaczynski’s ideas and writings do not matter his actions do.

You are incorrect in several other of your statements;

“There is NO DOUBT in the minds of ANY realistic historian as to the nature AND cause of the Civil War, NONE. Reading again my history presentation, note the close proximity between the events of Dred Scott, John Brown, the skewing of the Missouri Compromise by the Supreme Court after it being the law of the land for over 39 years, and the election of Lincoln.” Realistic historian? You sir have not read that much history if you make a statement like that. History is constantly being rewritten for the most part (but sadly not always) more accurately. I never said that States rights was the cause of the Civil War, I did say that is why it was fought at least on the Southern side. I imagine the majority of Union soldiers fought over slavery.

“The government is NOT your savior. Even when we WANT them to be, (as in the Kaczynski case) they are not only NOT our saviors, they are NOT our protectors.”
First, I do not expect the government to be my savior or my protector, you paint with a very wide brush in that statement sir. I have only one savior, Jesus Christ. I have served under arms in many places, notice I used the term served for it was not the government that I served but the American people as a whole. The one basis for the founding of the government was to “provide for the common defense”, law enforcement of which the FBI is the pinnacle of is not reflection of that statement.

As to the sketch of Kaczynski and whether or not it was accurate who cares? The sketch accurate or not is identified with the Unabomber also known as Ted Kaczynski. Though you have explained your reason for using that sketch as your avatar I feel exercised poor judgment. Your defense of his actions make it clear that you sir just don’t get it. Your assertions of John Brown as a martyred abolitionist are the same. While you have your reasons for not showing your face or using your given name I tend not to give credence to your message because you do not have the moral conviction to show yourself. There maybe more to it than that so I will be happy to let that drop.

Your condescending diatribes presume that we are all sheep in desperate need of your guidance to the truth. You presume a great deal. What appears to have escaped your notice is that everyone here is of the same opinion that the system is broke and we all need to do something to fix it. Your caustic commentaries do little to further that cause.

Comment by DubleDeuce on June 16, 2009 at 10:12pm

It is reprehensible for some one thinks John Brown and Ted Kaczynski are people to look up to. So I am reprehended! Thank you for your support.

To say the American people lacked moral courage then and now is the talk of a fool.
I find it hard for you to maintain your opinion of me as a fool when I have demonstrated to you time and time again the failure of the American electorate to get more involved in the serious and critical affairs of this country. A Gadfly perhaps, but not a fool. You MIGHT want to look those words up for more clarification.

Your facts are only loosely correct and gathered to fit your argument They are either CORRECT or they are NOT correct. Loosely or tightly is not an argument when defining facts. which by the way is basically a thumbing of your nose at the rest of us If the shoe fits…wear it and a failed attempt to flaunt your intellectual superiority. Sorry for my failure. I will attempt to do better next time to insure that my “intellectual superiority” is not lost on the great unwashed.
If you are going to attempt to interpret history then you need to have your historical facts straight. First there was no undue leverage by the larger colonies on the smaller ones especially in regards to slavery. You need to read the minutes (such as they are) of the Convention and get your facts straight.
Fact 1. The delegates were bound to an “all or none” vote in order to get the new document out to the states for ratification. This means that anyone could hold the convention hostage to their point of view. Slavery WAS A POINT of view. And South Carolina used it to blackmail the delegates into making way for it to be incorporated into the document. If you can’t figure it out from there, you ain’t listenin’.The northern colonies had the largest populations by far. If anything the smaller colonies required the establishment of the electoral college before adopting the Constitution.
“If anything”? Do I hear a less than robust position here? The fact is that an Electoral College does favor the lesser populated states but by the time of the election of Lincoln, the 12th Amendment has essentially eliminated the only radical mechanism that the Southern States could have employed to push their issues. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
While it is true that the electoral College is designed for the protection of the lesser populated states, the institution failed to protect the South from the inevitable will of the people. But an abolitionist proselytizing in the South had about as much chance of seeing the light of the next day as did a vampire. Would you rather that the issue of slavery be decided on the horns of the scaffold of John Brown, maybe many of them, or by the depth of the blood that flowed on the later battlefield? The question is mute and had been for over 30 years. The great irony of the whole thing is Brown’s prophetic death walk utterance. But until the first and fateful shot was fired on Ft. Sumpter we all today think that a compromise was possible. When it was all said done, 625,000 dead men spoke and said, “Compromise is NOT possible on this issue” It will be ALL OR NONE!
Before I go any further let me make this perfectly clear I do not believe in slavery, racial segregation, or anything of the kind. I am not sure why you think this is a necessary mea culpa to be put in place in this conversation. Keep in mind that during that time that time? I don’t THINK so! many people What kind of people? still arrived in the colonies owing seven years indentured servitude as payment for the trip. indentured servitude is not synonymous with the term slavery. It is characterized predominantly by the presents of a contract. Slavery was characterized by the presence of a Bill of Sale Slavery was a common practice through out most of the world at that time. Hurrah for most of the world. One of the PRIME differences that separates the founding of this country from all others, then or now, is the idea of exceptionalism. The deals that may or may not have been available to the Chineese or the Russians are truly (as you state) irrelevant to this conversation. 3/5’s was a much better deal than the average Russian got or Chinese or European for that matter. That is all besides the point though, moral courage or a lack of moral outrage was what you were ranting about. I do not wish to burden the early American populace with morality on the subject of slavery. It was a presence AND a way of life. BUT! The Constitution as adopted in 1787 CLEARLY was attempting to be a compromise document on the matter, awaiting time (and passions and economic efficiencies) to render the subject matter irrelevant. Their future did not oblige them.
The Civil war as it is known (mostly because the North was victorious) was not about slavery, in fact the Emancipation Proclamation was an after thought. The average Southerner that fought did not own slaves and could give a hang about the rich man’s problems, it was about the North telling the South what they were going to do. The Civil War or more appropriately The War between the States You have taken leave to correct the name of this episode twice now. WHY? Are you a history revisionist? As long as we are communicating on the subject we (at least not me) do not need to be so dramatic about the name we call it. Incidentally, The War Between the States has a more “Southern ring to it” was just that about the rights of States. Without the war the South would have more than likely done away with slavery on it’s own in the next generation. NOW! Who is the fool selectively (and loosely) choosing “facts” to support his “argument”?

There is NO DOUBT in the minds of ANY realistic historian as to the nature AND cause of the Civil War, NONE. Reading again my history presentation, note the close proximity between the events of Dred Scott, John Brown, the skewing of the Missouri Compromise by the Supreme Court after it being the law of the land for over 39 years, and the election of Lincoln.

Lincoln had made it well known in the Lincoln/Douglas debates just where his passions lay on the issue of slavery. With the Missouri Compromise pulled out from under them as a hopeful legal pretense for the balancing of the slavery issue and the Dred Scott case going FOR the South, and Browns’ unceremonious hanging as a American traitor, (as opposed to an active abolitionist) and the election of Lincoln in late 1860, the South truly had reason to be confused as to JUST which way the issue of their livelihood and way of life was going. The only REAL issue to contemplate NOW was that the executive branch was now in control of the boat and it was apparent that the South could be made incrementally to ‘walk the plank’ as the political situation unfolded and made itself known.

The cowardly cry of States Rights as a proximate cause for the Civil War is a fiction of the elitist historian. It is a fantasy to mask the unmentionable sin of slavery that was being perpetrated on a group of people under the protection of a non-speaking Constitution, a non-speaking Supreme Court, and a non-speaking populace that adhered to the premise of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. We speak of it with a hush even to this day when we use the euphemism “States Rights” as the proximate cause. IT IS A LIE. If you MUST, I can again show you by the scribe of the day, the proximate cause of the war, if you are so inclined to see it.
You said we need more John Browns, if the statement had come from anyone else I would ask how much they had had to drink before writing that trash. John Brown and your boy Ted Kaczynski Now, you must have me confused with someone else, this Ted Kaczynski. Be careful where you tread sir, you are ABOUT to be made a fool of…in spades. did not believe in democracy they believed in forcing people to their way of thinking through violence. I can understand why you might think that is right seeing how you use a sketch of Kaczynski as your AVATAR …and THIS is where you step off the sidewalk of terra firm and into the land of the fool. But, I will let you continue since you step with such conviction. and do not have the moral courage to even use your given name. By the way what Kaczynski did was the most cowardly of all terrorists acts he blew up innocent people, and while I am at it did not Ted Kaczynski write rambling diatribes while he was thinking about who he would kill next? Funny his writings are very similar to yours. As to moral conviction, this is a venue of ideas, NOT personalities. My picture or name would add NOTHING to the conversation. As to my “ramblings” being similar to the Unabomber, I have read them and do not see the relationship, either in style, subject matter, or prose. The Unabomber DID NOT blow up innocent people while writing rambling diatribes and considering his next target. The Unabomber sent bombs through the mail in an effort to get the media powers that be, to publish his manifesto on the adoption of science in the modern world.

Now, I have heard of frustrated authors looking for a publisher but this is ridiculous, even by my standards or citizen involvement. The Unabombers’ motives are NOT subscribed to by me. Not endorsed by me, and not supported by me. His work was the act of a human being that had been trained in the art of rationality. Taken to the ‘enth degree, that rationality took him and his mind to a point in time that even WE as a group on this forum have wholeheartedly subscribed to, a more simple time. A more simple appreciation of life. He saw in his own little universe the ultimate dead end that we here speak of with some trepidation but don’t really believe that we will see it. But WE ARE seeing it. We are seeing the demise of corporations en mass, financial SYSTEMS (not companies), personal wealth, personal dignity, personal property, and personal lives. All in the name of the headlong rush into the future.

Even now, we speak of the current problems in the guise of the “future”. In the belief that the genie of science will soon come out of the bottle and we will command it to give us all that we desire to propel us into utopia. Even Aunti Tutti Frutti wants us to get out of Dodge and get off the grid. This is quintessential Kaczynski.

Kaczynski was QUITE passionate about this and he was a gentle man in the aggregate. But his ideas consumed him. And the renouncement of his desire to be heard through the national media on such an important (to him) subject took him on a certain John Brown type journey to get the “bastards” to print his stuff. They never did. Not out of hatred, but out of conspiracy. Yep, the FBI was adamant that this guy not be given a national stage on the thin dime of intimidation. Plus the Times had more pressing things to waste their print ink on, like wire reinforced bra ads and Legal notices for foreclosures.

And the SAD PART of it all? We sheep, called the public, were all out looking for this “sketch”, I think you called it. A drawing that showed little more than the obvious, that he was a man-moustache-and he was wearing Carrera style sunglasses. We could not SEE his eyes, nor the essence of his face. His features, such as you could make them out, were those of 25 million other men on the streets of America. Yet, we soldiered on, giving every sun glassed and hooded entity the once over.

Now for the facts. That “image” you so caustically refer to as Kaczynski…ain’t Kaczynski at all. And the image, splattered all over this country in Post Offices, jails, and on local evening news broadcasts, was in fact an image that was the product of a sketch artist working with the eye witness who had SEEN the perp some 7 ½ years EARLIER for about 15 seconds. And from the time that the image became as common as wallpaper to the American physic, the eye witness REFUSED to claim that it was a likeness of the man she saw some 7+ years later. She especially was adamant that he wore no such thing as those sunglasses.

And as if you need more proof of the matter at hand (the avatar as a focus of your disdain) just look at the man that eventually was arrested for the crime, Ted Kaczynski. Now I ask you, IF you had been wandering about in a small village in western Montana one day and come across the enigma we have come to know as Ted Kaczynski, would you have immediately run off to the nearest telephone and called the FBI? After all, there WAS a sizeable reward for his capture. I didn’t think so. Point. The sketch was wrong and they knew it. The sketch FAILED to lead us to him. What DID lead us to him? Why, his IDEAS of course. NOT his image, or even a sketch of his image. They FOUND the guy through the publishing of his IDEAS. YEP. Just like Shel Silverstein wrote about his obsession of wanting a “Front Row Seat to hear ole’ John sing”, Kaczynski was finally given a write up in the Times. All 33,000 words of it. And the FBI, when they came to arrest him never DID find those sunglasses.

Moral of the story. The government is NOT your savior. Even when we WANT them to be, (as in the Kaczynski case) they are not only NOT our saviors, they are NOT our protectors. They FAILED to prevent even ONE of Kaczynskis’ bombs from being sent or going off. In addition to not being our savior, they led us to believe that they knew WHAT the perp looked like, giving us a false sense of knowledge that in fact did not exist. This keeps the heat off of what we NOW know to be institutional incompetence, or dare I say, institutional malfeasance. And WHAT tool did they EVENTUALLY resort to to find him, his own writings published in a national media. Exactly what he had wanted in the first place.

So, when I tell you that pictures and names are irrelevant here, but ideas are critical, perhaps you will think of my AVATAR, the Unabomber, his published manifesto, and his quickly executed capture through the crumb trail of his ideas, and take stock in what I say. But, if you are a fool, maybe not. But I don’t get to make THAT call.

The Deuceman

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on June 16, 2009 at 9:34pm

..
What's more gross than a truck load of dead babys? ... A live one at the bottom eating its way out!

You will all please excuse my bit of pessimism here, but as far as I can see, the only reason 'governments' are allowed to exist, at all, is to provide a warning to -some of- the real, coward criminals, historically responsible for the -continued-, needless, death of countless persons (mostly kids) around the globe today.
Government (for the most part) provides one service well. It keeps the population from taking up arms against those that are predispositioned to manipulate their way to positions of "sphincter containment" in an effort to control the policies of the environments, for their own gain, regardless of the side effects.

If a change is to be enacted, it will have to come from some source that these personalities have overlooked, from what I can see. Dramatic change is just -not- a part of the most 'governmental' operating systems.They are designed to placate, not correct (especially as they get older / larger). Whatever historical case documentation you may attach to it, this is the result. We all use that wh*re for anything we can get from her. You know this is true. This is the real nature of the system we have created for ourselves.

...and it didn't take me 10 paragraphs to make the point. (see also previous post)

Comment by Bill Tucker on June 16, 2009 at 5:55pm

Dan,

Well said!

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last