Random thoughts 10

An example of the term ‘double standard’:

This rules, I wish I would have thought of it first! – maddox.xmission.com

For those of you who don’t want to click on (or can’t access) the link, the story goes that Maddox (a man who owns and operates the website called “The Best page in the universe”) received many emails one day informing him that a radio DJ in Atlanta (whose name was published by Maddox at one point but has since been removed) plagiarized some of his material (from his article on Cameron Diaz, found here:
I hate Cameron Diaz – maddox.xmission.com
A lot of people, who live in the Atlanta area and who listen(ed) to that DJ and also visit Maddox’s website, called in to the DJ complaining that he had stolen from Maddox. Maddox contacted the DJ, explaining that this was not the first time that material from his website had been used by others in a public forum without Maddox’s permission. As he puts it, “these people are saying that my material isn’t good enough for the radio, yet my material has shown up on over 20 radio shows, both syndicated and non-syndicated, for over 3 years now. So which is it, assholes? Either my material is good enough for the air and you give me a show, or it’s not and you STOP USING IT.” Imagine how many other underground/non-mainstream/independent artists/webmasters/writers this has happened to. Can you think of any examples?

In this day and age, considering what you have read in newspapers and seen on TV news programs, would the title of the following article really be a shock to you:
School Guards Break Child’s Arm And Arrest Her For Dropping Cake

If not, then you may have already been desensitized to authority figures using excessive amounts of violence to subdue persons for minor offences (an almost exact definition of the word ‘Draconian’). However, many people in the world of journalism know that, in order to engage the reader, you have to come up with a sensationalized title in order to attract attention. Therefore, before you judge the article by its title, read it:

School Guards Break Child’s Arm And Arrest Her For Dropping Cake – infowars.net

If you come to the conclusion that the author of the piece, or the webmasters of the website itself, are presenting a slanted view of the story, check it out elsewhere (examples listed below):

Black Student Says Guard Broke Her Arm for Spilling Cake Crumbs – BET.com

Rally supports Palmdale 4, demands justice – pslweb.org

Pleajhai Mervin – mithras.blogs.com

First the Jena 6 and Now the Palmdale Four – jasmynecannick.typepad.com
http://jasmynecannick.typepad.com/jasmynecannickcom/2007/10/first-the-jena-.html (read the comments at the bottom of the article to get a different perspective)

Knight High students charged in fracas – avhrtf.org

Pleajhai Mervin Update – liberaljournal.blogspot.com

Teenage girl beaten by school security guard – newscloud.com
(once again, read the comments)

Take note that the person who shot the cellphone video, Joshua Lockett, was also arrested; is this justified? Also, when things of this nature occur, those in higher positions of authority will always make this comment (or something closely related to it) to the media: “We are looking into the matter/We are still investigating this case/We cannot comment at this time because of an ongoing criminal investigation” etc. To me, this can be translated as, “The blue code of silence now blankets the case; the facts of this case will be distorted, attention will be diverted to non-important topics, pieces of evidence will be destroyed/covered up, and those responsible will continue to do their jobs with no real disciplinary action whatsoever brought against them.” There are many reasons as to why ‘officers of the law’ (I use that term very sarcastically) get away with the crimes they commit; some may include the aforementioned blue code of silence, judges owing favors to politicians, pressure from outside sources (Mafia, government, powerful corporations, etc), distortion of facts by the media, etc. In many cases, once news reaches the public via the mainstream media, details of it have already been distorted/changed at LEAST a few times. There are many people in the field of journalism who know what ‘spin’ is and they know how to apply it to EVERY story. Please keep this in mind when you pick up a newspaper or tune in to a TV news program. The news you read/hear nowadays is slanted and biased; this is fact and you need to research for yourself exactly as to why this is and why it is accepted.

During the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) protests in Montebello, Quebec back in August of 2007, three masked men were ‘arrested’ by police. It was later alleged that these three masked men were undercover policemen, and this allegation sprang from the fact that there were yellow triangles on the bottoms of their boots (as is commonplace with standard issue police boots). Later, Quebec Provincial Police ADMITTED that the three masked men were undercover police, but denied that they were there to provoke or incite violence (doing so would have given the police, who were already there to ‘keep the peace’, an excuse to violently disband the protest, perhaps even arrest some of the protesters on trumped-up charges of terrorism)…

Undercover police ‘protesters’ caught at Montebello – benedictionblogson.com

Officers never posed as protesters – Quebec police – CTV.ca

Montebello protesters stop blatant police provocateurs before they can engineer a riot – rustyidols.blogspot.com

So what was the rock for – rustyidols.blogspot.com

Quebec Police go undercover at Montebello SPP protest – memories of the same 44 years ago – postmanpatel.blogspot.com
(some history on agents provocateurs)

As an afterthought, here is one man’s opinion on both the protests at Montebello and the Dziekanski tasering in Vancouver:
Common Theme – Montebello To YVR (video)

Just when you thought that all M.I.T. students were geniuses…
MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with ‘fake bomb’ – Boing Boing

In this day and age when those who are in charge of airport security are under pressure every single day, you should not have to stretch your imagination in order to guess what would happen to you if you walked into an airport wearing something on your person that has wires sticking out of it (Ipods, Discmans, and headphones/earphones excluded)! She is VERY LUCKY that she was not shot dead (and then shot multiple times after her body had hit the ground), or at the least brutalized and tasered into unconsciousness. Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, that when you are at any airport, there are people constantly watching you from many angles. You should not be strolling around joyfully, as Star Simpson did when going into Boston’s Logan International airport, but scared out of your wits for your life for the fact that armed personnel could overreact at any minute and gun you down for thinking that your black Ipod is the detonator to a bomb in your backpack. Keep in mind, however, that you must not appear scared at any time, but emotionless. I’m going too far, you say?

Behavioral screening – the future of airport security – CNN.com

Have you ever heard the term “drank the kool-aid” but not known what it means?
Kool-Aid – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you can’t be bothered to read all that, then associate the following quote with the term: “being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission — wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.”

What is meant by the term “Damage control”?
“measures taken to offset or minimize damage to reputation, credibility, or public image caused by a controversial act, remark, or revelation”
Damage control definition – merriam-webster.com

There is a word used in the media that refers to putting a particular slant on a piece (story) to give the viewer a certain conclusion, or lead them to think certain things. The word is “spin”, and you can read about it here:

Public relations – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please be advised that there are a great number of psychological techniques used in media today to disillusion, entertain, or misinform you. Please educate yourself on these techniques and realize what kind of world we are living in today.

Speaking of spin, have you ever seen information been presented in a fashion intended to scare you into submission, only to discover that the information was largely exaggerated and the presenter was a fraud?
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

Those of you who like getting your music for free (meaning that you’re heinous criminals committing illegal acts that should result in multi-million dollar fines) would be interested in an article featured in the New York Times (Now the Music Industry Wants Guitarists to Stop Sharing – New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/technology/21ecom.html?ex=1313812800&en=ea101e9e884ddd86&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) that talks about music giants wanting to shut down guitar tablature sites that allow users to learn the guitar chords of their favorite songs. Oh yeah! I’d rather download for free the tabs for Meshuggah’s latest album rather than go out and buy the album! That’s EXACTLY what I’d be doing! Somehow they believe that if I download guitar tabs, I’d be less likely to go out and buy the album (therefore, somehow hurting the songwriters). What they don’t think we understand is that the record labels and the music publishers make the vast majority of money from CD sales, and if the artists want to make money, they must go out and tour. Once again, the music industry is trying to vacuum up all the money they can from the most unlikely of places. As someone once said, “The music industry is the only business that sues its customers”

Speaking of you “filthy downloaders” (a term I heard comedian Russell Peters use at the opening of one of his shows), you may be interested to know that there are people out there who do investigating on behalf of the music industry. They take down your IP address and give it to big music companies so they can name you in large million dollar lawsuits for copyright infringement. But wait, there’s hope! A program called Peer Guardian may help you remain (somewhat) anonymous while being an evil downloading Communist on peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Check it out!

Peer Guardian Firewall – Keep Your P2P Private – netforbeginners.about.com

I’ve read a few articles that talked about the Coca Cola company being responsible for giving Santa Claus the red suit (that we all know him by so well) as a sort of marketing ploy to convince people that Santa Claus likes Coca Cola and wants you to buy it. Such marketing techniques DEFINITELY exist today (Joe Camel comes to mind), but if such a claim IS true, then the techniques started with Coca Cola. Here are some articles detailing the history of Santa and the red suit:

Did Coca-Cola Invent the Modern Image of Santa Claus – snopes.com

Coca-Cola & Santa Claus – thecoca-colacompany.com

Santa Claus – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, guess who was caught illegally making copies of a movie back in 2006? The Motion Picture Association of America! That’s right, and get this: a lawyer for the MPAA feels that they were justified in making copies of the film WITHOUT THE FILMMAKER’S PERMISSION! No $250,000 fine for them, huh?

MPAA admits to unauthorized movie copying – arstechnica.com
I wonder why this wasn’t made mainstream news when the news broke? Have any of you ever heard of the film “This film is not yet rated”? If not, PLEASE find and watch it. If need be, I will rent it and come to your house so that you may see it. It is an all-round important film in the questions it asks and the stance that it takes.

Speaking of “This film is not yet rated”, get this:

–   If the MPAA gave a film an NC-17 rating, they often did not tell the director of the film what needed to be cut out in order to give the film an R-rating. How frustrating is that? For those of you out there who make and edit films, you know what I’m talking about.
–   When a filmmaker makes an argument to the board as to why their film should not receive an NC-17, the filmmaker is NOT allowed to cite scenes from other films (which may have been given a rating other than NC-17) that may be similar to scenes in their own film (kind of like a “you allowed this particular scene from this movie, so why can’t you allow this scene from my movie?” type argument).
–   The filmmaker is not allowed to know the names of the people who rated their film, or the names of the clergy (yes, clergy) who viewed the film and participated in the discussion afterwards. After the discussion, the members would then vote on whether or not the film would continue to have its NC-17 rating or not (this would happen only if the film had received an NC-17 in the first place and the director of the film appealed the ruling).

As I understand it, an R-rating means that people under the age of 18 can see the film as long as they’re accompanied by someone over the age of 18 (as if the presence of the person over 18 is somehow going to shield the younger person from what they’re going to see in the film); on the other hand, NC-17 means that NO ONE under the age of 17 can see the film, no exceptions.

Here’s some information on the NC-17 rating:
Why the NC-17 Rating for Films Exists and Where It Came From – flixster.com

Quoting various people from the film:

“We have a censorship board called the MPAA that looks at your movie and says, ‘This is the rating we’re gonna give you, and if you want it to be any more extreme just expect five people to see your film.’ No advertising budget, no distributor is gonna wanna touch it…”

“The difference between NC-17 and R rating could be millions of dollars. It could mean the difference of, on some films, maybe even tens of millions of dollars, because it definitely limits your ability to market the film. If you’re limited on your ability to market a film, people aren’t aware of it, they’re not going to even know to go to the theatre to see that movie…”

“And if you choose not to accept the rating, then your ads don’t really run, you can’t run TV spots, you can’t…if you run a TV spot for a movie that hasn’t been rated yet, they say ‘This film has not yet been rated’ but you never see TV spots for like, ‘This film is unrated’…”

“The worst censorship of all, I believe, is Wal-mart, Blockbuster; all the big chains that are probably responsible for 40% of all videos sold…DVDs…will not carry NC-17 …”

“Jack Valenti’s been very good, publicly, about, ‘We serve the public, we serve the parents, we serve…’ it’s like, crap. They serve the studios, that’s who pays their bills, that’s who they are. I mean, they are the studios…”

“Does the perennial charge that the studios would treat you better than the independents hold true…my answer, I’m sorry, in terms of when I was there, was absolutely no.”

Now you may have an idea as to why some films are edited the way you see them. It isn’t always bad screenwriting or bad editing, but sometimes the lack of communication by the members of the MPAA who saw the film and decided to give it an NC-17 rating.

MPAA decides to “review” rules (conclusion of “This film is not yet rated”):
(This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) – Trivia – imdb.com
“The MPAA announced that starting in March of 2007, it will change their policy and allow filmmakers to cite other film’s ratings as comparison. The MPAA will also provide information about the demographics of its board.”

Wow, what a surprise! After they were busted (meaning the information from “This film is not yet rated” went public), the MPAA suddenly has a change of heart and decides to ‘review’ their ‘rules’. Isn’t it always that way in this corrupt and backwards world?

If this doesn’t have you frustrated, then here’s a quote from the film:
Former MPAA rater Jay Landers: “When I left the board, it was brought to my attention that I was expected to remain completely silent about any of my experiences on the rating board.” (Reading) ‘You shall not, during the term of your employment or thereafter, disclose to any other person, firm, or corporation, nor use in any way confidential information relating to the MPAA which may cause or be calculated to cause injury or loss to any of the above mentioned.’ When I asked Joan Graves if they could put in writing what specific forms of information they consider confidential, they refused to do that…and said, ‘Now, we deliberately leave the…what’s in writing fuzzy so that at any time we can use our discretion as far as suing former employees who disclose what we consider to be too much information and they indicated that they would not hesitate to sue if they felt that there was injury to their interests.”
PLEASE SEE THIS FILM (1 hour, 37 minutes)!!!!

The ‘top cop’ of the West Vancouver police, Kash Heed, suddenly resigned on or around February 23rd, 2009; he said it was because of “personal reasons.” My opinion is that he is fearing for his life, and you should read on to find out why. Quoting the Thursday, February 26th, 2009 edition of the North shore Outlook:

“What I uncovered in the three weeks before even taking this chair alarmed me so much I had to hit the ground running,” Heed said.
Asked if the actions he found so alarming could be called corruption, Heed replied, “It depends on your definition of corruption.”

He’s covering himself by not revealing what he thinks corruption is and he won’t say whether or not there is/was corruption within the West Vancouver police department.

After an unsuccessful bid for the top job in the Vancouver Police Department, Heed replaced West Van chief Scott Armstrong, fired in December 2006 after a flood of scandals, including a drinking party on department grounds followed by an officer’s drunk driving crash.
An investigation into that incident was allegedly mishandled by two senior WVPD officers, Insp. Robert Fontaine and S. Sgt. Doug Bruce. The two officers have since retired and a probe into their alleged botching of the investigation into the incident has been cancelled.
In December Heed acknowledged he had ruffled feathers in the rank and file by removing some senior officers from their positions, telling The Outlook he had to “blast away a bunker mentality”. Heed said that he was aware of a number of his rank and file were not happy with his moves, but he would not accept “the status quo.

Ruffled feathers, huh? Would you like to imagine “ruffled feathers” to be a great euphemism for “having his life threatened”?

Asked whether confidence issues raised in the letter were connected to Heed’s resignation, Goldsmith-Jones said she could not comment. She also said she could not comment on whether she agreed with Heed’s stated views on need for reforming the force.

I believe West Vancouver Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones “could not comment” on either of those topics because she might end up as a convenient-accident victim one day soon if she were to comment.

For those of you doubting that members of a police force could be corrupt in any way, please wake up from your rosy-coloured dream world and take a good look at the real world. Cops can be corrupt, and many ARE. They are in positions of power, and if they’re smart enough (and if there are enough of them) they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

On a related note, it’s interesting that the cover page of the aforementioned Outlook newspaper has this title: “The Gang fix: Politicians grapple with solutions to bloody warfare”. Corrupt cops who intentionally mismanage investigations and make subtle threats are gangs as well, but nobody seems to be reporting on them…I wonder why?


Quoting the Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 edition of The Province:

“Rundel admitted he didn’t see Dziekanski pick up a “metal object” from a nearby desk. But in the statement he gave later to investigating police, Rundel claimed Dziekanski “picked up a stapler and clenched his fists, put the stapler up above his head and at the point another Mountie, Const. Kwesi Millington, pulled up the Taser and deployed it.”
“Dziekanski took an aggressive, combative stance”, Rundel testified yesterday, saying he feared briefly for his own safety.”

FEARED BRIEFLY FOR HIS OWN SAFETY? There were FOUR RCMP officers there! Weren’t they all armed? What about defensive and offensive training?

“The four officers at the airport that night were Corporal Benjamin Monty Robinson, Constable Bill Bentley, {Constable Kwesi} Millington and {Constable Gerry} Rundel. Each has his own lawyer and will testify at the inquiry but none faces criminal charges.”

Of COURSE not, because that would mean that the justice system would be doing its JOB of prosecuting those who are GUILTY. These cops will receive nothing, not even a slap on the wrist. This “inquiry” will be as far as any sort of punishment goes. In this day and age, in this world, the guilty go free. Remember the Rodney King trial where the officers that beat King down (quite excessively) were acquitted of the charges laid against them? The L.A. riots occurred as a result of that.

“Rundel said Dziekanski “swung his right arm, clenched his left fist and took a step forward in a combative posture.” However, when he was shown a frame-by-frame replaying of the Paul Pritchard bystander video, Rundel could not identify any point at which Dziekanski appeared to make those motions until after he was Tasered.
Rundel testified that Dziekanski was Tasered because he “disobeyed” a police officer’s “command,” but could not identify what command Dziekanski disobeyed, despite persistent questioning by inquiry lawyer Patrick McGowan.”

Let us not forget that Dziekanski could not speak a word of English, and the officers were told that Dziekanski could not speak English.

“Rundel said the RCMP use-of-force chart calls for the Taser to be deployed before batons or pepper spray.”

That makes sense because it’s easier to beat someone with a baton and pepper spray their eyes after they’ve been temporarily paralyzed by Taser shocks of up to 50,000 volts of electricity.

“Rundel said he heard on a police radio that a man was “throwing objects”, “breaking glass” and likely drunk. (In fact, Dziekanski had thrown a small table but did not break glass. Toxicology reports showed he had no drugs or alcohol in his system.)”

“After Dziekanski was Tasered once, Rundel said he heard Robinson tell Millington to “hit him again”.”

Remember that this is the first of four RCMP officers to testify. I’m sure that the other three will give contradicting statements, something to the effect of, “No, HE hit him with the Taser WITHOUT having to be told.”, “NO! Someone ELSE hit him with the Taser!”, “NO, he slipped and the Taser accidentally went off.”

Conclusion: if this guy meets the RCMP…. 


 …he will look like this afterwards…


And THEN, if this couldn’t get any more incredible, there’s this article:

RCMP officer says he regrets Dziekanski’s death – CTV.ca
“given the fact that we came in without all that prior knowledge and had to deal with the situation with the limited information we had, I can’t say I could have done anything differently. That’s unfortunate, but that is how it is.”

And finally, something fun:
Breakup Letter, Dramatic reading – YTMND


  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: