qui tacet consentire videtur

He who is silent is taken to agree.

Conscientious objectors seem unwilling to keep quiet about things one may merely observe and conscientiously object.  Why not just shut up and let it go?  Because silence implies agreement, and to speak up and out is to be what you are, a conscientious objector.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Guns!

There were loaded guns around the house I grew up in, readily accessible but somewhat hidden.  If I had to come out blasting after hiding in a closet, well no problem, big surprise for a bad guy.

I knew the book on the shelf hollowed out with a 38 Police Special inside.  I shot enough guns in my youth with the family in the mountains to have no problem opening the book, taking the safety off and blasting away.

Not all of us get called to conscientious objection, and I have no complaint about those who in "invincible ignorance" have no problem killing others who present a threat.  I believe those with invincible ignorance are what is necessary and sufficient to keep the rest of us safe from the bad guys.

I am not talking about me being a "free rider", I am talking about the natural disposition is distribution of people.  Crows clean up crap from streets.  That does not make me a "free rider."

"How come you killed that guy?"

"He needed killing.  He killed this other guy.  He was talking killing some more."

"But you know the rule is "thou shalt not kill.""

"That's right."

"But you emptied your Glock into his head!"

"He needed killing.  He killed this other guy.  He was talking killing some more."

That is invincible ignorance.

Speaking of Glock, they have an ad campaign.

You can check out their Oscar-quality vignettes.  I am all for anyone who wants a gun to have one, and no one else needs to know.  It keeps us all safe when no one, especially cops, knows who is armed.  I like that Glock is advertising guns in the context of training.  Good on Glock!  No one should carry a  gun who is not trained.

But my problem here is twofold - "confidence to live your life?"  That is projecting way too much benefit on a gun, and presumes a Glock is necessary and sufficient to "love your life."

The other is the ads smolder with manly man manliness.  I would not be surprised if the director of these films usually films gay porn, because he has sure hit the spot on man as sex object.  A gun does not make you a man.  Again, Glock goes to far.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Child Sacrifice and You

Wars are fought over rents, who gets the rents to be taken out of real estate.  The people in USA fomenting war with Russia right now know this, so they must give the people who will actually die in this war a reason to support it.

If you tell people if they sacrifice their children for "security" it is only human nature for people to revert to child sacrifice for that reason.  This is why we hear so much about "the ultimate sacrifice" and thank you for your service.  Some of the living believe the death of others makes their lives better.

Now I was at a conference on the holocaust where one of the professors threw out a statistic: in war zones, targeted populations die at a rate of some 70% adults and 90% children.  I ran some quick calculations:

Say we have a 100% population in a targeted group, by the above statistics let's say it is made up of 4 million adults and 6 million children.

So who dies?

70% of 4 million adults is 2.8 million dead.

90% of 6 million kids is 5.4 million dead.

So the total dead out of ten million is 8.2 million.

2.8 million dead adults is about 33% of the total dead.

5.4 million dead kids is about 66% of the total dead.

Kids die at a rate of two to one in war.  Child sacrifice is wildly popular among people who thirst for war, and believe it will bring a better lives for themselves.

It it any surprise that the children who leave as soldiers came back to such a high suicide rate, when they find out they were sacrificed to effect a 2-1 kill ratio on kids so the rich can get richer?  And their parents can feel more secure and proud?

There is a reason the rule is thou shalt not kill.

Soldiers asked John the Baptist about being a soldier.  The advice necessarily directed the soldiers to find other work:

Luke 3:14

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

I Agree With Hillary

What does it matter?  A USA Ambassador gets himself whacked while gun-running to al-Qaeda.

'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

What?  He did not know gun-running to the enemy is risky business?   This was extremely marginal adventurism that does not pay off one way or another, and could not.  All the actors in a whimsical if lethal scam are now dead. So what does it matter?

You'd think an Ambassador would think it through: "What will happen if gun-running to al-Qaeda goes awry?"  He probably thought like Fast and Furious, nothing would happen.  Perhaps the State Department needs me to lecture on geopolitics.  Neither Russia nor China will tolerate regime change in Syria.  The team that whacked the Ambassador and company were pros.  USA Ambassadors need to be apprised of geopolitics before they are let out into the fields.  (Not to mention being personally involved in the movement of arms in gun-running operations. Now that's ambition!)

What is interesting is none of this is new, only that it is exposed.  How come?  To,  as the article states. "blame Obama?"  Maybe that is the whole point.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Why Soldiers Kill Themselves

Did you know when the USA was formed, there was expectation there would be no standing army?

Did you know general officers must be nominated and approved by congress.  They are precisely political appointees?

When we have a "professional" military, we really have another welfare program for millions of people who would otherwise be productive in the free market.  A welfare program in which the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff is the same rank and purpose as Kate Sibelius over at the Health and Human Services.

Now about 40% of Americans will tell you HHS is far more important than War, and another 40% will tell you War is far more important than HHS, the scholarships v battleships debate.  A false dilemma since we need neither as government-provisioned, since we can have both without the waste, fraud and abuse of democracy.

To maintain the "professional army" contrary to the design of our country, young people are encouraged to "join the fight for freedom" as if someone, somewhere, has the slightest interest in harming USA freedom.  Defend their countries against USA aggression, yes.  Curtail freedom in USA, no.

What happens is these people are sent out on missions in which they quickly realise the injustice of their work.  Decent people finding out they signed up for indecent work.

Suicide is at one end of a progression.  They are countless more people who are merely miserable, to some degree, depending on the degree they experienced the dissonance between promise and reality.

Bring the troops home, end the standing military.



Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Need to Kill

The essence of conscientious objection is "thou shalt not kill."

Killing is an understandable reaction after staring into the abyss and realizing the horrifying possibilities given free will.

People either prefer to live in a fantasy world denying that which the bastards are capable,  or accepting the realities on the ground in practice and imagine the only condign reaction is lethal violence.  Get a weapon and sort it out.

What if it is a bad as it is, but violence is an unnecessary response, killing the bastards is not necessary?

That is the heart of conscientious objection:  yes, it is that bad.  No it is not necessary to kill.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Child Sacrifice

Child sacrifice is the execution of children by parents on the belief that "sacrifice" (just who does the dying?) will make life better for the people doing the killing.

The Bible goes through elaborate lessons on why this is forbidden, and eventually all partakers get wiped off the face of the earth.

That does not stop right-wing Christians, with neocon encouragement, from sacrificing their children to secure goods only God can provide: peace, security, justice, freedom.

The right wing Christians even say "thank you for your service" and blasphemously "if you have freedom, thank a veteran."  No, I thank God, and God.

If people putatively Christian want to blaspheme and claim their child-sacrifice benefits me, I have to say no, I disagree.  As long as they do not require I join them in their pagan right, all I can say is I am sorry you do not trust God.

I also complain their child-sacrifice spills over to others who do not share their blasphemy.

I think the preacher man should spend more time on this topic.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.