Police outside the RNC

[Martin Radwin]

Rich; Are the little green men coming for you? I find your last post to be a paranoid fantasy.

Did you bother to click on the link that Rich provided? It documented a specific instance in which the rough equivalent of martial law was imposed on a small town. There has been much discussion of resorting to such repression in Chicago and Washington, DC.

The US is now one terrorist attack away from the possible imposition of martial law on the entire country. Such enabling legislation has been passed by the criminals in Congress and signed into law by the criminal Bush administration. The president now has the power to commandeer the state national guards. to declare US citizens enemy combatants, and to have them imprisoned without trial. Such provisions are found in the Military Commissions Act and various other totalitarian style legislation that has been passed in the last several years, all to protect us against the "terrorists", of course.

If you want to believe that this is all a paranoid fantasy equivalent to a belief in an invasion of little green men, help yourself. But you might want to consider at least researching the issue before reaching this conclusion.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

The police are a necessary component of law enforcement, but you have to have the right laws or they are very dangerous and rights' violating. Even with the right laws they can do you and your loved ones grevious harm. They'd mostly rather shoot than be heroic, and they do. They take serious instruction on when they can legally do that. Good luck on legally shooting a police officer.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Martin Radwin: "Did you bother to click on the link that Rich provided?"

I clicked on it, Did you really expect me to take seriously the ravings of the likes of Alex Jones? Here's the announcement of his "documentary," Endgame:

"For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population, while enabling the "elites" to live forever with the aid of advanced technology. For the first time, crusading filmmaker ALEX JONES reveals their secret plan for humanity's extermination: Operation ENDGAME."

You'll have to do better than wacko conspiracy theorists.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I get along well with cops.

But then I get along well with, er... others who... er... are not cops, too.

(I have not had too much contact with the latter since I have been back in the USA.)

Sometimes the line blurs...

As to this discussion, there are good cops and there are bad cops. Is that complicated all of a sudden?

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

As to this discussion, there are good cops and there are bad cops. Is that complicated all of a sudden?

No. Parasites who call cops pigs do so because they resent their benefactors. Rand exemplified this type of mentality well enough in AS.

As for the paranoids, they tend to be vocal in on line fora. Their neighbors have stopped answering the door, and their relatives have caller ID.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Your insinuation is that a poster on this thread is a parasite.

Do you know that person well enough to say that about him and be accurate? Is he, for instance, on welfare? Does he refuse to work?

I don't care for calling cops pigs for several reasons (despite my nostalgia of the Vietnam years), but not because of parasitism. I do not detect any parasitism in anyone on OL. I often detect oversimplification and excesses of rhetoric, but those are another matters.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I know the parasite Chris Baker from two years of posts on another site, and dozens of gratuitous comments such as:

"The fact that all these Alaskan boys are going into the military tells me that the economy up there must be in the toilet."

This was his comment on Palin's selection, with its implications for Palin's record, and the motivations of those who join the military.

I do not call people who are on welfare parasites. I do call people who survive because of the efforts of men they deride parasites - in the moral sense. Conspiracy theorist and misogynist are also titles that would apply, but I think parasite is enough for now.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Words and gobbledygook and very subjective handling of an insulting term.

You have a lot of value, and to be blunt, you are better than that. Why do that when you can do the real deal on the ideas? Not everyone can.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I can understand thinking Jones is a "whacko" at first blush, but there's a problem with that.

It's called evidence. Yes, the most beloved of beloved: Evidence<tm>

Jones is a fierce documenter, and he archives. There are facts, facts, facts. His archives are legit.

There's no need to rave when you have the real deal. Truth being stranger than fiction, and all that.

I took his work the same way at first, but then I decided to start verifying. Guess what?

[william.scherk]

I can understand thinking Jones is a "whacko" at first blush, but there's a problem with that.

It's called evidence. Yes, the most beloved of beloved: Evidence<tm>

Is this the Alex Jones of infowars.com? The promoter of 9/11 truth sites?

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, that's him, William... infowars.com , prisonplanet.com , prisonplanettv.com .

It's a shock to find out there actually are globalists, an elite. But it's either wake up, or not. Hell, just google the Bilderberg Group. Research Bohemian Grove. Research the upper end of Freemasonry. There's thousands and thousands of pieces of data.

Of course Jones comes off as flamboyant and extreme. You need a grinding, noisy wheel in battles like this. But he's one of the sanest men I've ever seen. Heck, ask Ron Paul, if you like where he's coming from. He's on the show constantly.

[algernonsidney]

Rich,

With or without Jones, there is plenty of stuff out there. All one has to do is look up the name Sibel Edmonds to see what things are coming to here. To their credit, the _London Times_ did give her some press. I doubt that her story will never see the light of day in an American newspaper.

Woodward and Bernstein would have never gotten any press today. Watergate would have been dismissed as the third-rate burglary that it was. It wasn't the break-in that got Nixon in trouble. It was the fact that he tried to cover it up.

I'm willing to accept any evidence from credible sources on what happened at the WTC. Still, I do think Hanlon's Razor applies to many things like this. Basically it says: "Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity." With regard to the WTC, there is plenty of evidence of stupidity. The biggest failure was that the government made sure that the pilots could not defend their planes.

That was one of the few good things that came out of that fateful day. Right after the WTC, people started buying guns. While they said in polls that they trusted the government, their actions demonstrated that they knew that they were the only ones who would defend themselves.

I have seen Jones make quite a few errors, though, much like the legacy media that he despises.

If people who worked for the legacy media would just do their jobs, then Alex Jones would be out of business. As long as CNN, MSNBC, and other simply repeat the lies that they are fed, then someone like Alex Jones will be necessary.

One part of the legacy media where journalists still are honest is in the world of sports. If it's about politics, forget it.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

One of my closest friends in the world (my bassist) is a policeman, he works in the worst part of Cleveland. So, "pig" doesn't cut it for me.

The thing is, it's like anything else, there's good cops, and rotten ones. It's more serious, though, because they wield power--the ability to detain, search, even deadly force.

The real problem is deeper, much deeper. Look around the country--see what has evolved. We are being moved more and more into a, well, police state. There is ample evidence to support this. We are being conditioned to military rule.

It doesn't help that they are being told to do more and more work that they shouldn't be doing. I have met guys from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who seem pretty cool--they are cops who want to legalize drugs.

Acton had a rule for this: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupt absolutely." I think police officers would be better if they just went back to protecting.

They are constantly running anyone and everyone for warrants, and the highway fishing expeditions are beyond belief. They want to get as many people as they can into the system.

I lived in Columbus for six years (1998-2004). From 1987 to 2002, I never got a speeding ticket. I got another in 2003 and 2006. I am convinced that they got more arrogant after the WTC. I don't think my driving changed much.

Drive a red car for ten years. I bought it because it was a good car and a great deal. I never imagined all the harassment I would get because of it. I remember up near Ashtabula one of them followed me for about six miles. He eventually gave up because we got close to the state line.

Do the work. Find out that there are already internment camps built throughout the United States.

Work is something a lot of people don't want to do. It also takes a lot of time. It's easier for some to just repeat what they are told and stay in their comfort zone. I believe Rand once said: "You can evade reality. You can not evade the consequences of evading reality."

I am a Wikipedia addict. That was also created by an Objectivist.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Chris Baker

[Alfonso Jones]

I just found out that this jerk's an OL moderator!

My last post to OL.

The term "jerk" is entirely inaccurate and inappropriate. Roger has reacted quite reasonably, in response to a propaganda piece from you.

Bill P

[Philip Coates]

**decline in intellectual level of this psuedo-objectivist community**

I have a suggestion for those who have been using the words "pig", "jerk", "parasite", and "wacko" here recently:

Try to post thoughtful items whose content is restricted to facts and arguments or first hand evidence (not usually merely links). Make them well-argued without attacking other posters or using slander or insult or ad hominem or emotionalist, contemptuous language flung at other posters.

Don't air your old grudges for all of us. The likelihood is that no one has the slightest interest.

Don't tell us how little you think of another poster.

Don't tell us of previous conflicts you had with an individual on another site. It's unlikely that anyone can or will take the time to research this. And you are simply wasting good bandwidth on 'personalities'. Remember that your readers have limited time and limited patience.

A good gauge for the intellectual level of your posts is: Would you find it used by a news announcer or in an editorial column in the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper.

In the current presidential and congressional campaigns, would journalists - or the candidates and their ads - call their political opponents "jerk" or "parasite" or "wacko" or "pig"? Or would they use language more appropriate to the college-educated? Would they find a more intelligent, thoughtful way to identify -- giving proof or instances -- in what ways they are in strong disagreement with their opponent?

[Rich Engle]

I like the part on the post screen that says "Insert Special Item." It makes me feel all dirty inside.

Do we get those special items at Cafe Press, or what? Do they come with directions? Are they legal in Ohio? Will they get me through these endlessly lonely nights more better than re-reading "Naked Lunch," and searching around for my bottle of Lonely Man Hand Lotion<tm>?

But I digress...

Phil once again tries to tame the Helen Keller at the Dinner Table set:

'A good gauge for the intellectual level of your posts is: Would you find it used by a news announcer or in an editorial column in the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper.

'

I see where you're coming from, Phil, but if I did that, I'd be out of business. I wouldn't want to write like most of them anyway. They have funny hair, and most of them look like they have, in fact, Inserted A Special Item. If the median of that lot represents an intellectual baseline to which I need to aspire, well...(wondering if there's enough of anything good in the medicine chest to swallow and end it all).

It's amazing how these cute little feuds go on for years. I know that these guys don't look for topics--they look for where their sparring partner is hanging out. I remember doing that, but I've traded up--when I cave in I just pick on James Valliant. Even Perigo no longer has any appeal to me. I mean, once I got done mining that whole air conducting thing, there was nowhere else to fly: how could that be trumped? <---blatant mission creep

It's an itch they can never sufficiently scratch; an itch that turns into a rash that they continually pass to and fro.

"Language is a virus from outer space." --William S. Burroughs.

But back to the police state. I have a fairly fresh take on it, since I managed to get put in jail last year (only a few days, but trust me, that's sufficient). And yes, I was innocent. MMMMM...Lorain County Jail! Average cost-per-meal: .17 . You think some cops are lousy--try dealing with a freshly-empowered C.O. sporting self-esteem issues. Yikes.

That was great. You know, you can't take books in there anymore, even benign ones. I managed, though. I used two for bait, the third planned as a ringer. Obviously they rejected Bruce Campbell's biography. And e.e. cummings didn't fly either because it had a lot of lower case in it or too much sex stuff. But, Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" flew right through (along with a picture of my girl in there for a bookmark). Imagine reading that while you're in a pod full of psychopaths, skinheads, and wife-beaters.

They do let you watch TV, though, and provide a small amount of crap novels from the library's Young Readers section. Odd, all that...I can't read Cummings, but no problem watching films like "Blow," "Gangs of New York," and some other drug movie I forget which.

Advice: DO NOT DRINK THE FRUIT PUNCH.

[Martin Radwin]

As to this discussion, there are good cops and there are bad cops. Is that complicated all of a sudden?

No. Parasites who call cops pigs do so because they resent their benefactors. Rand exemplified this type of mentality well enough in AS.

This is not even close to being true. In Rand's great novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand's benefactors were architects, artists, writers, composers, philosophers, scientists, engineers, and industrialists. Not one of the heroes or even decent characters she portrayed was a police officer or any other type of government employee. In AS, all of her heroes not only didn't work for the government but wanted nothing to do with the government and ran their lives and businesses accordingly.

As for Rand's attitude toward the police in a statist society such as that found in AS, the following passage is quite illustrative:

"He carried a gun in his pocket, as advised by the policemen of the radio car that patrolled the roads; they had warned him that no road was safe after dark, these days. He felt, with a touch of mirthless amusement, the the gun had been needed at the mills, not in the peaceful safety of loneliness and night; what could some starving vagrant take from him, compared to what had been taken by men who claimed to be his protectors?"

Considering that the average American spends almost half of his or her income paying taxes and complying, directly, or indirectly, with the cost of government regulations, the same question posed by Rearden seems rather applicable to life in modern day America -- what could criminals take from us, compared to what is taken from us every day by our own government, with police as the government's enforcement arm?

The scene above concluded when two police officers suddenly approached Rearden while he was talking with Danneskjold, taking them both by surprise. After the police officers departed, "Rearden realized that he had stood facing the policemen with his hand clutching the gun in his pocket and that he had been prepared to use it". Rearden was prepared to kill two police officers in order to protect Danneskjold, a man who would certainly be labeled as a "terrorist" these days. So much for the idea that Rand considered the police to be any kind of societal benefactors.

Martin

[Rich Engle]

Outside of your basic power junky/control freak type, most police, I believe, are not even aware that they are tools. Not to insult, but for the most part, they are not in the kind of head space where they'd go digging around to find out how the world is being run, and who's on first. The good ones are just decent, patriotic types. They want to help people. That, and the huge majority of them are adrenaline junkies. I've been around, know, seen ample evidence to know that's the case.

But this is changing. It is the nature of evil. And make no mistake, ladies and gents, evil is out in the light a little more than usual these days. That's part of the problem for them--their planned demise of things, the social unrest, the running down of things, it all worked too quickly, and they are having trouble controlling it. This was discussed at the last Bilderberg conference.

The power, the programming, the format, the pressures...good cops will break. The new ones will never know anything different. It is a desensitization to the human condition.

One of the few main things that can be done is expose, expose, expose, share the facts. Open people's eyes. Globalists really can't stand being outted, it queers up their game.

[Brant Gaede]

Rich,

Just another brick in the (evil) wall, eh?

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

PHIL: "I have a suggestion for those who have been using the words "pig", "jerk", "parasite", and "wacko" here recently:

Try to post thoughtful items whose content is restricted to facts and arguments or first hand evidence. "

Physician, heal thyself! Have you read some of your OL posts about Solo and Lindsay Perigo? They were almost as insulting as mine.

By the way, although I used the term "wacko," it did not refer to any OL member, but to Alex Jones -- about whom it is almost a compliment.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

Whoa...(scratches head)...

So, it's OK to call Alex names, but we're supposed to lay off Perigo? Ponderous.

But still, in essence I agree with Phil on some level. You get a thread going, and the next thing you know you have a couple of Nancy Boys rolling around on the pavement, scratching and pulling hair over some old fallout that has nothing to do with the business at hand.

Woops...was that bad?

rde

"When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro." --Oh, most everyone knows who said that.

[kiaer.ts]

Don't tell us of previous conflicts you had with an individual on another site. It's unlikely that anyone can or will take the time to research this. And you are simply wasting good bandwidth on 'personalities'. Remember that your readers have limited time and limited patience.

I have no problem with this, so long as I am not asked to justify my brief and appropriate response to such remarks as Baker's.

Your insinuation is that a poster on this thread is a parasite.

Do you know that person well enough to say that about him and be accurate? Is he, for instance, on welfare? Does he refuse to work?

This forum is unmodified. Baker is free to gratuitously insult me, relatives, friends, and people I respect, and he exercises that freedom. When I very justifiedly and briefly call him a (moral) parasite - not a "pig" - but a name which expresses a meaningful evaluation and behind which I stand, I am challenged to defend myself and then am criticized for answering the accusation. It is not I who have gone on at length about this nonsense, Phil. If you don't want me to explain, don't ask me any further.

I certainly trust this is enough.

[Brant Gaede]

Don't tell us of previous conflicts you had with an individual on another site. It's unlikely that anyone can or will take the time to research this. And you are simply wasting good bandwidth on 'personalities'. Remember that your readers have limited time and limited patience.

I have no problem with this, so long as I am not asked to justify my brief and appropriate response to such remarks as Baker's.

Your insinuation is that a poster on this thread is a parasite.

Do you know that person well enough to say that about him and be accurate? Is he, for instance, on welfare? Does he refuse to work?

This forum is unmodified. Baker is free to gratuitously insult me, relatives, friends, and people I respect, and he exercises that freedom. When I very justifiedly and briefly call him a (moral) parasite - not a "pig" - but a name which expresses a meaningful evaluation and behind which I stand, I am challenged to defend myself and then am criticized for answering the accusation. It is not I who have gone on at length about this nonsense, Phil. If you don't want me to explain, don't ask me any further.

I certainly trust this is enough.

The forum is unmoderated but people get called out on the name-calling. Phil likes to lecture folks on their Internet manners because he's afraid any given forum tends to degenerate into nastiness. His concern is misplaced here--just try to go on and on with it. The guy who called Roger a "jerk" packed his bags and moved out on his own. And it's not necessary to answer in kind. Just point out what the other fellow is actually doing, as I did.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> Physician, heal thyself! Have you read some of your OL posts about Solo and Lindsay Perigo? They were almost as insulting as mine. [barbara]

Well, my advice is soooo good, I sometimes might need to take it myself.

Infallible and perfect though I might be . . .

[Jonathan]

**decline in intellectual level...

Please provide evidence comparing previous intellectual levels here on OL with the current levels. Let's see some facts which back up your claims.

...of this psuedo-objectivist community**

Why do you call OL a "pseudo-objectivist" community? Is it because people here think for themselves and sometimes question or challenge certain Objectivist ideas? Is it because non-Objectivists are allowed to freely express their views here? Please provide the evidence and facts which have led you to label this forum "pseudo-objectivist."

I have a suggestion for those who have been using the words "pig", "jerk", "parasite", and "wacko" here recently:

Try to post thoughtful items whose content is restricted to facts and arguments or first hand evidence (not usually merely links). Make them well-argued without attacking other posters or using slander or insult or ad hominem or emotionalist, contemptuous language flung at other posters.

But wouldn't it be "pseudo-objectivist" to stick to the facts and evidence, and to argue about issues without using insults, ad hominem attacks and contemptuous language? After all, Objectivism's history, going all the way back to Rand's own methods, is loaded with the use of insults, attacks and contempt while often ignoring facts and neglecting to present any evidence -- certain thinkers were judged to be evil and responsible for the ideas and actions of others, without evidence to support such judgments; certain creators' works were judged as "malevolent," "trash," "disgusting," etc., without evidence to support such judgments; and it appears that the works of some thinkers had probably not even been read, and apparently no effort was made to understand the context of their times and the ideas to which the were responding, before being morally condemned by Rand and her fellow proper Objectivists.

I think the level of intellectual discourse and civility here on OL is generally a vast improvement compared to the overall history of the Objectivist movement.

J