Tag Archives: politics

Bearing Takes on Ted Talks

Popular Youtuber, socio-political critic and cartoon bear, Bearing has some fighting words for the execs who run the even more popular youtube Channel TED Talks.

 

Bearing claims “Ted employs a policy of Dishonestly and underhandedly silencing anyone who dares to criticism their content.”

He says he had a run-in with TED in November, 2016 when he created a video utilizing short clips from the TED video to which he was responding. This is a widely used format on youtube and legally constitutes fair use under Youtube’s copyright policy.

TED however, issued a DMC takedown notice against his video. When Bearing filed a counter-notice against them, instead of withdrawing their claim, they allowed the full 14 day time period to expire.

The TED website’s about page clearly says: “TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation. Our agenda is to make great ideas accessible and spark conversation.”



This begs the question if TED is really trying to spark conversation, or attempting to use its power to intimidate smaller youtubers out of the conversation in order to control the narrative.

On top of this, Bearing has found anther youtuber, Schwinn Wiggins who has had a similar run-in with TED.

As a proponent of the US First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, of the Press, and of Fair Use I consider this a subject worth information and further investigation.

Please watch the video below and direct any inquiries, criticism, or concerns to the content creator, Bearing.


US Veterans at Standing Rock Apologize for History of Genocide

standingrockvets

The demonstrations ongoing at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline have brought a wide assortment of passionate supporters committed to stand with them against the destruction of sacred and historical sites, and to protect the fresh water supply of the Missouri River.

It began with a small group of Lakota from the Standing Rock Reservation and eventually attracted supporters from many of the over five hundred federally recognized tribes in the US as well as countless members of the numerous state recognized tribes across the country. Grand entrances of delegations from the Oglala on horseback, processions of Hopi, and a fleet of canoes from various northwestern tribes just to name three were broadcast across the internet almost every day for weeks. They have been joined by a delegation of over 500 religious denominations, and the Redrum Motorcycle Club and Black Lives Matter. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (for whom Morton County Sheriff’s Dept issued an arrest warrant), and actress Shailene Woodley (who was arrested and strip-searched by Morton County officers along with 26 others) also took part in direct action during the #NoDAPL opposition.




After months of abuses at the hands of DAPL private security who have assaulted the protectors with pepper spray and attack dogs, and by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department who has committed numerous human rights and treaty rights violations, shooting people with rubber bullets, mace, tear gas and using water cannons against them in freezing temperatures, targeting journalists and the press for arrest, it has become obvious that there is just a complete lack of humanity in the ranks of the MCSD and DAPL.

Then on the weekend of December 3 over 2,000 US military veterans arrived in an organized show of support, pledging to act as human shields for the protectors against the aggressiveness of the MCSD, to give a break to the people who have been there struggling for the past months, and to help draw mainstream media attention to the cause. On the first night of the arrival a small group of veterans engaged in an operation that returned the canoes that had been stolen from the people by Morton County deputies and DAPL personnel.

Then on Monday, December 5 in what has been dubbed a forgiveness ceremony at the Four Prairie Knights Casino & Resort on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, a large group of veterans led by Wesley Clark Jr. addressed Leonard Crow Dog, a Chief among the Oglala Sioux. Clark asked for forgiveness on behalf of the United States for the past centuries of genocide and abuse by US military. Clark led about a dozen others in the front of the congregation as they knelt in a penitent fashion, one man bowing all the way to the ground. Crow Dog accepted the apology, expressed forgiveness and then offered an apology for of all things the Sioux victory against the Americans at the Battle of Little Big Horn, popularly known as “Custer’s Last Stand. History is being made at Standing Rock right now.

To be certain, these veterans are doing a good thing, performing noble deeds, and maybe I’m just too much of a skeptic, but something doesn’t sit well with me about this forgiveness ceremony. For starters no one in the video seems old enough to be guilty of historical military crimes against Indians. I don’t believe that a son is guilty for the deeds of his father so I don’t hold today’s veterans accountable for events they had nothing to do with. Secondly, an apology on behalf of the United States only has any real merit if made by an elected and currently presiding Commander in Chief of the United States. Wesley Clark Jr. isn’t exactly of much consequence as a representative of the United States, and even if he was, an apology doesn’t guarantee the real needed reform in Indian affairs. Someone else might say “it’s a good start,” and I’d hope they are correct.




I get it. A lot of Americans feel guilty for the genocide against Native Americans that occurred in the past and continues through less direct methods into the present, and the United States as a corporate body is guilty of these crimes, but not every white American alive today is responsible. Certainly there are people, organizations, state and federal governments and departments who are guilty for various crimes and assaults against Indians today, but I can’t see any validity in holding today’s veterans responsible unless they themselves were engaged in these assaults. I don’t like this white-guilt approach to allying with Indian struggles. I don’t want to see white Americans prostrate themselves in a supplicating ritual for atrocities in which they did not take part. There is nothing that can be fixed about the past. The present is where we must make change for the future.

I think these veterans were already engaged in admirable acts of great compassion by showing up and putting their bodies on the front lines beside the Natives defending their land and their culture. For that, they should all be commended along with everyone else who put their body in the line of duty fighting against the Black Snake. From here we need to continue to make noise and make allies until Washington DC can’t ignore the movement any longer. The treaties must be restored and respected like the Supreme Laws of the Land they are. The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs to be reformed. Sovereignty must be respected on Indian land by state and federal authorities, and self-determination must be at all times the forefront of the cause. When this is accomplished, then the United States as a body will have atoned for her past misdeeds against the Indigenous of America. Then real healing can begin between our Nations.

Should Felons have the Right to Vote and to Bear Arms?

It’s been an issue of debate for decades, and recently it’s a hot topic once again: should felons be allowed to vote?  And what about their rights to keep and bear arms?

In most states citizens convicted of a felony lose their right to vote for a period of time.  In some states such as Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, this right is lost forever unless granted clemency that reinstates that right.  Under federal law a citizen convicted of a felony loses their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.   I’ve heard and read the arguments from people who support these perpetual abridgements of citizens’ rights for felony convictions, and for the most part I’m simply not convinced.

To boil it down the argument seems to essentially be a matter of “they chose to commit the crime, so they can’t be trusted with these rights.”   While I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment (as well as the other 9 in the Bill of Rights), I can at least see a certain amount of logic regarding the right to own and carry a gun being restricted from a person who has been convicted of a violent crime in which the perpetrator used a firearm.  Similarly restricting the right to vote of a felon may be reasonable if the citizen was convicted of something like election fraud for voting multiple times in the same election.  But the majority of felons are convicted for outlawed activity nothing like those.

Consider for a moment that laws are made and unmade by humans, and the judicial system is not infallible.   In a lot of states felonies include behavior like driving on a suspended license more than twice, and the most commonly committed felonies include possession of a controlled substance like marijuana.  And more than a few times innocent people have been convicted of felonies.

But it begs the question: if these three rights: the right to vote, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms can so easily be abridged by committing a felony, then what other rights should be taken away when you are convicted of a crime?  This gets even more interesting if we also apply the “once convicted, can’t be trusted with that right forever” argument.

Convicted of a felony involving a church scandal: lose your 1st Amendment freedom of religion

Convicted of fraud: lose your 1st Amendment freedom of speech

Was that fraud committed in written form and disseminated?: Lose your freedom of the press

Convicted of harboring a fugitive, or keeping some outlawed paraphernalia in your home, maybe an empty shell casing in Washington DC: Lose your 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure

Convicted of a crime on your own private property: lose your 5th Amendment right to private property

Convicted of ANYTHING: lose your 5th, 6th, & 7th Amendment rights to a fair and speedy trial by jury (Why not? You’re a criminal.  You can’t be trusted to plead your case honestly anyway … right?)

This could go on and on.  We could have all sorts of fun finding reasons to restrict your 3rd Amendment rights against boarding soldiers.

One more disturbing argument I hear comes mostly from social conservatives who are afraid that the majority of felons would vote for social liberals and economic socialists if allowed.  While I might tend to share the second concern, that’s a bias that I can’t ethically support legislatively.

Many states have a treason law on the books.  Perhaps the current administration could reinstate some form of Sedition Act, thereby outlawing criticism of the government.  Then republicans, libertarians and disappointed democrats could be rounded up and charged with sedition, having their rights to vote and keep and bear arms removed.  Hey, it would be law; they would be guilty; and felons can’t be trusted right?

Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto: A Review

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1964 (orig. 1884), Washington Square Press, New York

marx photo: Karl  MArx 180px-Karl_Marx.jpg

Marxism is the bedrock and foundation of communism.  This tyrannical philosophy did not meet its end with the demise of the Soviet Union.  It is still very much an active threat to liberty today.  Proponents of Marxism seek to undermine capitalism at all points and they have learned to use the political system expertly to achieve their aims. What are those aims?  To centralize all authority over your life and finances in the hands of an all-powerful and uncompromising state, seeking global domination.

Marxism and the theory of communism are rooted in the essay Bourgeoisie and Proletarians by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, found in the Communist Manifesto, first published in 1884.

Class Warfare

The primary theme of Marxism is class warfare.  Marx opens his essay with the bold and all-encompassing  statement that the entire history of “all hitherto existing society” [later revised to exclude traditional “native” societies] is characterized by class struggles.  In short, there is always, in all situations class antagonism between an oppressor and an oppressed.  Modern “capitalist” society, he says is no different from medieval society. Instead of titles like “lord” and “serf,” we now have a dichotomous class distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  The only solution, Marx says is open and “violentrevolution.

bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is initially defined as “the class of modern capitalists, owners of means of social production and employers of wage-labor” (57), but is eventually revealed to also include the middle class property owner. The bourgeoisie are driven by economic and technological development.  The historical development in these areas created “industrial millionaires”—the bourgeoisie, successful business people responsible for toppling Feudalism and creating a society where technology and education are available to all. Instead of creating a more liberated society however, Marx claims the bourgeoisie have only created “new forms of oppression.”  Marx believed that Representative government only serves to manage the affairs of the bourgeoisie.

proletariat

The proletariat is defined as “the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of their own, are reduced to selling their labor in order to live” (57).  Marx presents the idea of an isolated working class, a people without hope of improving their lives.  Marx argues that workers are enslaved by the bourgeoisie, most especially the manufacturer.  Once the worker has been paid by his employer, “he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” (70).

The proletariat is supposed to represent the “immense majority” who own no property and supposedly have no power or control over their lives.  Their mission in life is to enviously destroy the property and wealth of those who do.  Marx explains that as wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands, the bourgeoisie is shrinking in number.  Those who washout of the bourgeoisie, become proletarians (since Marxist theory only allows for these two “classes”).  These washouts “boost the intellectual acumen” of the proletariat.  Marx also recognizes that the “social scum” may be absorbed into the movement as a “bribed tool.”

Luddism

The bourgeoisie constantly strive for progress, causing older, less efficient methods of production to be replaced by newer, more advance technologies. Marx denigrates this, claiming that the economic value of labor is decreased because technological advancement makes jobs easier to perform.  Marx complains that this has caused women’s labor in bourgeois society to be worth as much or more than a man’s. He decries the fact that industrialism has put people on equal economic footing despite age or sex.  He also complains that technology has caused the world to become more integrated with disparate countries now sharing in each other’s cultures.

Modern industry offers commodities at such inexpensive prices that demand is created by the people’s  desire to obtain these inexpensive goods.  With the increase in industry, the proletariat grows and becomes concentrated in greater numbers.  Due to competition in the workforce, wages fluctuate, requiring worker’s unions to develop in order to keep wages at a fixed minimum.  On occasion riots are necessary to further the proletarian cause.

Technological advancement in the traffic of information has allowed the proletariat to interact to the degree that they can now more quickly and efficiently organize themselves into a political party.  Since the bourgeoisie has created an environment in which technology and education are available to all, the proletariat must now use those benefits against them to destroy the very source of those benefits.

Violent Revolution

The ultimate goal of Marxism is violent communist revolution.  The first goal of the proletariat is to stage a successful revolution in their own countries, and then unite throughout the world in order to create a communist world order.  Marx explained that the score can only be settled when “that war breaks out into open revolution and where that violent  overthrow or the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat ” (p 77).  To accomplish this, the proletariat must first organize themselves into a class and “wrest all capital, by degrees, from the bourgeoisie,” and “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” (p 93, emphasis added).

Statism

In order to support and maintain this statism, Marx planned to destroy the family by replacing home education with social education (p 89), and abolishing all personal property and inheritance.  He also planned to abolish countries,  nationality and all “eternal truths,” all religion, and all morality including Freedom and Justice (p 92, emphasis added).  In order to accomplish this goal: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things” (p 116).

Conclusion

This is Marxism at its core: class warfare based on the politics of envy.  It looks toward an omnipotent state to manage the affairs of the people.  Marxism’s long-term goal is global communism, and the abolition of national identity.  It is anti-freedom and scoffs at ideas like justice, and  morality.  It views technological advancement as a detriment to society and ignores any concept of personal responsibility for the proletariat. This ideology is covertly and sometimes naively promoted under various liberal pseudonyms, often uncited in order to avoid the stigma of the word “Marxist.”  It is quite possibly the most dangerous philosophy at work in society today, especially for people who value freedom, independence, and justice.

The Communist Manifesto ends with these words: “Working men of all countries unite!”