Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

Who Won?

So,

Who won?

Trillary!

H'rump!

I'll bet neither of them has even touched a disc golf disc before.

Whuh?

I think we may have crossed wires but I must say that a disc golf tournament would be an interesting way to choose the president.

Right?  Maybe it could be one of the weekly challenges for next election's reality show:  Survivor: Presidential. 

To answer the question you thought I was asking, the winner was the 1% who duped 100 million people into voting that the 1% maintain control over the country.  It was pretty unclimactic but I did find a couple of interesting things in the voting numbers.

Hillary got 92.8% of the votes in the District of Columbia.  For those of you trying to figure out why Hillary lost, you don't have to look any farther than this.  A vote for Hillary was a vote for the corrupt system.  Not that voting for Trump was a vote against the corrupt system.  As part of his character in the 2016 Election reality show, he got to play the role of the outsider.  This played in his favor even though it was just written into the script for his character.  We all know that a true outsider would never be allowed to win the primary or be given the same amount of media attention as the 1% candidates.  Hell, Ron Paul won the Nevada caucus and the results were thrown out and McCain delegates were appointed by the RNC to represent the state.  A true outsider is never given the slightest chance of being seen as a viable candidate, never mind winning the election.  The fact that they appointed delegates rather than go with delegates selected by the people demonstrates that this country is not a democratic republic.  People are allowed to vote as long as they vote for one of the two puppets the 1% puts forward.

There have been a lot of things posted on Facebook by Trillary supporters with one side posting "Suck it!" messages and the other side announcing the end of the world.  The best that I have seen so far though was from a Johnson supporter reprimanding Hillary supporters for wasting their votes.  Had they voted for Johnson, he would have won and if he wasn't suicided or killed in a freak accident before January, things might have changed. 

Yeah, four years of zero presidential coverage from the media.

No bully pulpit for you!

Oh they would cover him extensively.  They would cover his inability to get along with congress members.  They would talk about how his vetoes were stopping the good work of congress, work done for the 1% obviously but that part would be left out, and his inability to get congress to champion any of his causes.  He would be portrayed as the biggest loser of a president every, a cautionary tale of what happens when the people vote third party.  It would have been very interesting but obviously people who vote for the status quo are not going to vote for change, only candidates who talk about change, but turning the common complaint of wasted votes upside down was a nice twist.

You know who really does want to break from the status quo? 

You.

Us.

Well, yes, but also people in Utah. 

We are in Utah.

Have you ever heard of Google Maps?

Voters in Utah.  Most states had single digit percentage of voters who voted third party.  New Mexico had double digits at 11%.  25% of voters in Utah voted third party.  That's freaking amazing.  It didn't change anything this time but we can always hope that people are waking up to just how rigged the system is.

Even if it wasn't rigged, it would still be a strange system.  18% of the population voted for Trump.  If Trump wasn't a puppet and actually decided the course of the nation, what kind of messed up system would allow 18% of the population to decide how the other 82% of the people had to live their lives, what they could do, couldn't do, and had to do?  That's crazy.  There may be new readers to this blog tempted to say something like, "Well, you could vote in the hope of determining how everyone should live their lives."  First, I have way too much respect for people to use violence and threats of violence to force them to live their lives in a way I find acceptable.  Second, the system is set up in a way to make sure every vote is a wasted vote.

The question in the title for this post was supposed to lead into a discussion of my first disc golf tournament.

You should have been more specific.

Especially after such an emotional election.

My performance in the tournament evoked far more emotion than a fake election or the hysterical reactions of the disciples based on what candidates said they would do.  One of the biggest complaints about politicians is how much they lie and yet devotees on the right are screaming in triumph about how much things are going to change and zealots on the left are screaming in anguish about how much things are going to change.  Neither is waiting to see if anything is actually going to change.  So much drama, it's like the all the voters are high school students.

Maybe they should raise the minimum age for voting.

There are drama queens in every age demographic.

Ahem, back to the tournament.  It was a shotgun start and I started on hole with a narrow fairway that I usually play for and get par on.  I thought that I should try to play it safe, which of course, was a mistake because by changing my game, it just made things worse.  My first throw was out of bounds in a way that I have never done before.  My game had few shining moments in the first 9 holes while I made mistakes that I rarely make.  After that though, I seemed to find my groove getting birdies on several holes.  I would have done very well on the second half except for a couple of mistakes caused by trying to cut things too closely to trees.  One hit a tree and one went out of bounds adding 3 strokes to my score. 

My overall feeling was that I did not play the course as well as I usually do.  Tournament jitters maybe.  It was also a bit chilly at the start and I couldn't get my hands to warm up during the front nine.  Probably a bit of both.  The end result turned out to be a bit surprising.  I tied for third place in my class.  To keep it in context, I must point out that there were only 9 people competing in my class.  It was interesting to look at my score compared to the results of the other classes.  If I had played in the advanced class, I would have taken 6th.  If I had played with the best players in the open class, I would have taken 11th (which would have been third from last). 

I received $25 worth of credit at Infinite Discs for getting third place.  Pretty cool.  I used it on the spot to buy a couple of discs.  I got a fairway driver for myself that I had on my list of discs to experiment with.  I got a distance driver for Trey as payment for caddying for me for part of the course.  We tried them out at our local course on our way home.  I'll probably do a review of the disc I got in a future post after I've had a chance to throw it some more.

So, my first tournament went as bad as I feared it could and ended up with better than expected results.  I signed up for another tournament too, which those of you who know me will find surprising.  Not only because I never played tournaments before yesterday but also because it's in January in northern Utah.  I hate the cold and it will probably be about 32 degrees.  Come on global warming! 

I don't think that's PC.

Is anything he says PC?

All things considered, I'm glad I did it and plan on playing in many more tournaments next year.

Oh yeah, remember that I guessed that my PDGA player rating would be about 850.  The rating for my play on this course for this tournament was 882.  Since that's my only tournament rating, I think that will be my PDGA rating until I take part in more tournaments.  I don't have any other scores to average in yet.  I wasn't far off with my guess and was pleasantly surprised that I had guessed low.

 

 

Guns and Control (Part 3)

So,

One thing that I have learned while standing outside the cage labeled “False Dilemma” watching the unfortunate zoo animals trapped within is that it doesn't take a whole lot of mental acrobatics to dismantle most of their arguments, such as the one for stricter gun control laws. In fact, it takes no effort at all because they will do all of the work for you.

Awfully kind of them.

Isn't it?

The proposed "solution" to the "problem" (maybe the cage should be labeled “Hegelian Dialectic”) of gun ownership follows the same absurd thought process as so many of their arguments:

1. People with guns are dangerous.

2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we will issue guns to people to prevent people from having guns.

Ummm, http://youtu.be/j9ndS6yu3Kk

Yes, yes you are.

As is the norm with these Pavlovian creatures and their close cousins, the sociopaths that see the contradiction but propose the “solution” anyway, the proposed “solution” immediately violates the stated goal of the proposed “solution”. As soon as they issue the first gun to a person, they have done the opposite of preventing people from having guns. If they had a solution that didn't involve issuing guns (or other, even more dangerous weapons) to people in an effort to reduce the number of guns owned by people, that would be different.

How about this? After we issue guns to people to disarm people, we issue guns to the disarmed people to take the guns away from the first group that we issued guns to.

I think you are now qualified to vote in the next presidential election.

As you can imagine, going around stealing guns from people carries with it a certain amount of risk.   Even if violence and threats of violence weren't the habitual choice for gun control proponents as an ironic "solution," it's fair to say that arming robbers who have orders to steal guns would be necessary in order to carry out the plan.

The plan of arming people to disarm people?

I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't sound right with that plan.

Truthfully, many of the people arguing in favor of this "solution" are ignorant of the absurdity that they are spouting. They have been raised to view USA, Inc. as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, ethereal entity with superhuman powers, which is free of the ethical bounds of mere mortals. In short, to these people, USA, Inc. is a god.

According to Mittler Romney, corporations aren't gods, just regular people.

Maybe he meant to say, "Corporations are personages, my friend . . . of course, they
are."

I could probably write several posts on the ramifications of this belief and the benefits gained by the rulers and their subjects by participating in this religion but for this post, it's enough to note the existence of the belief. Deifying the rulers' corporation causes a mental disconnect which blinds people from the reality of what they are truly saying. It's what leads to the most clichéd question asked when discussing freedom with a statist.

"Who will build the roads?"

"Well, who's building them now?"

"God."

They have grown so accustomed to referring to this abstract concept of government as an actual physical being with supernatural powers that they have forgotten that it's just a corporation that employs people to accomplish things.

In the name of god.

Amen.

Any "solution" they propose to deal with a "problem" they have with people is going to have those same people utilized as part of the "solution."  This obvious contradiction undermines any argument they may make and makes the rebuttals in Part 1, while still valid, completely unnecessary.  The simple answer to calls for stricter gun control is, "So, let me get this straight, you're going to issue people handguns, assault rifles, sonic weapons, energy-directed weapons (heat rays), armored personnel carriers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else weapons in order to take weapons away from people?" 

Not people, the government.

Who are reptilian aliens?

The argument is ludicrous but these people have apparently made a vow not to ever be outdone as holders of the Guinness Book of Records for Absurdity.  Guess which people they want to give the guns to?  The same type of people who have killed over 10,000,000 people in the last 75 years, employees of the US government.  Now, I don't know about you but if I suddenly became demented and decided to impose my will on over 300 million people, I would still hope that my ideas sounded like they might possibly be in the vicinity of Rationalville.  Employees of USA, Inc. and despots receiving billions of dollars in US tax money each year probably kill more people in one month than nonemployees do in an entire year.  The plan proposed by gun control advocates is actually:

People with guns are dangerous.

Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we are going to say, "Screw that!" and issue guns to those people with a predilection toward violence or who have been so fully indoctrinated into the religion that they will blindly follow orders to commit violence against innocent people . . .

I don't know the rest.  What motivates these people is beyond me.  I'm still guessing that it's because their high priests tell them what to do and what to think.  It's clear that it has nothing to do with rationality, reasoning, logic, or facts.  Perhaps it's the combination of obedience to their religion along with the emotional delivery of the message.  Employees of USA, Inc. killed more children at Waco than were killed in Sandy Hook and they do this all the time all over the planet.  Shouldn't gun control activists be advocating for control of those people? 

It's against their religion.

If they did that, their souls may be condemned to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity.

Or until they starved themselves to death to escape the brutality of people employed by the US government.

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control (Part 2)

So,

In part 1, I discussed two rebuttals by gun owners in response to calls for more gun control laws.  In part 3, I'll point out the inherent absurdity of the proposed gun control "solution" but today, I'm going to discuss the rebuttal from gun owners that I find lacking and the reasons why I find it wanting.  One of my reasons is fairly common sense and the other shows how gun owners are helping to perpetuate a system hell-bent on seizing their guns. 

The 1% have more control than ever and their actions, such as having their butt-puppet, The Great and Powerful Oz, sign NDAA into law demonstrates that they are afraid the people aren't going to take much more.  Much of the hype by corporate media surrounding recent sensationalized incidents of violence in the United States has been fabricated or exaggerated while ongoing, massive violence by employees of the United States government is ignored by the same "concerned" media sources.  The purpose behind the hype is to persuade those who are too stoopid to know better into supporting the 1% in disarming their enemy, the 99%.

They are just concerned about our safety.

Yes, that's obvious.  Disarm the citizens and dissolve entire police departments.  I'm feeling safer already.

Not to worry.  When the police prove to be inadequate, expect to see the military called in to "protect" American citizens.

Who is going to protect the American citizens from the military?

You.  Without.  A.  Gun.

Do you think they would be content with a 2 out of 3 bout of rock, paper, scissors?

Not likely.

However, there is a push by quite a few people to reach out to military and law enforcement officers in an effort to convince them that attacking Americans violates their oath (in addition to being just plain evil).  Speaking of oath, if the two of you are quite finished hogging my blog, it's an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution, or rather the 2^nd Amendment, is the third common argument that I see put forth by gun owners as a rebuttal for stricter gun control and it is by far the weakest of the arguments.  I understand the desire to throw into the mix.  The two, more powerful rebuttals, are rejected so there is this feeling that adding another argument may help.  However, in addition to lacking the strength of the other two arguments and continuing a defeating mindset, it acts as a distraction from the better arguments.  While the two sides bicker about the meaning of the oddly worded amendment and attempt to read the minds of people long since dead, better arguments sit idle.

The common sense problem with using words written on a piece of paper by the rulers of the country is that the rulers can write new words on a piece of paper (or simply just ignore the "god damned piece of paper").  When the rulers do write new words on a piece of paper and your argument was based on the previous words on a piece of paper, your argument is gone.  The possibility that the rulers will write new words on a piece of paper brings up a new argument from gun owners.

Whether or not the new piece of paper is made out of recycled materials.

Or from the skin of someone who stood in the way of ExxonMobil.

Our rulers would never do that, would they?

I'm pretty sure I heard Obama say, "It puts the lotion on its skin," before his last drone attack. 

"This drone attack was brought to you by ExxonMobil.  ExxonMobil, bringing you a brighter tomorrow."

Unless you were the family hit by the drone.

The main thrust of the new argument is on the sacred nature of the Constitution and how changing it would be very, very, very, very wrong.  However, if you bring up changes that abolished slavery or allowed women to vote, the response is, "Well, yeah, those changes were right."  This drops the entire discussion into the realm of the subjective with both sides arguing about the nature of allowable or "right" changes.  Neither side can win this debate because it's a matter of personal opinion.  Easily changed or ignored words on a piece of paper that invokes debates based on a person's point of view completely deballs the Constitutional argument against gun control. 

Yeah, but what if I used the Constitution to make a paper airplane drone?

Then you'd have an argument that was lost in the next gust of wind.

Not only does the 2^nd Amendment rebuttal to gun control score a zero, it has the potential to reaffirm an insidious belief system in those making the argument.  This paradigm is anchored more deeply each time a statement is uttered such as, "The 2^nd Amendment gives me the right to . . ."  This creates or continues the illusion that people have 2^nd Amendment rights.  They don't and it's a very dangerous belief.

WhuchyoutalkinboutWillis?

I hate to say this but I'm with the goofball on this one.

People are constantly discussing their Constitutional rights (in fact, I have done so often in the past) as if they exist.  The danger of this mindset, of believing that the Constitution gives people rights, goes back to the heart of what the Constitution is: words on a piece of paper written by the rulers.  If it were the case that people were given the right by the words on the paper to own a gun, all the rulers would have to do to take away that right is change the words on the paper (or write new words in the form of a "law" that "nullifies" the right).

The truth is that you have human rights based on the fact that you are human.  You might call these inalienable rights.  You have them by the mere fact of being you.  They aren't granted to you by words on a paper.  You have these rights, period, not because they were bestowed upon you by some corporation (even one with an impressive name like The United States of America, Inc.).

Can I buy stock in that corporation?

You are the stock in that corporation.

What people habitually call a "Constitutional Right" is actually a "Constitutional Restriction" on the allowable actions by the rulers.  You don't have a right to own a gun because of the 2^nd Amendment.  You have the right to own a gun because humans have the right to own property.  People do not have the right to take your property without your consent.  Since the rulers exempted themselves from this basic moral principle, they had to put some assurances down in writing (2^nd and 4^th Amendments) for the people that they, the rulers, wouldn't just take stuff from people without a good reason.

But don't the rulers get to decide what amounts to a "good reason?"

Very good, Grasshopper.

By incessantly arguing about the 2^nd Amendment granting the right of the people to bear arms, the false notion that the government gives people rights is ingrained even deeper.  The truth of the matter is that governments can't grant rights which are inalienable, they can only violate those rights.  In fact, their whole existence depends on violating the rights of people.  If the rulers can somehow get the people to believe and act like their rights are derived from the government, the people can be more easily controlled.  If the people trap themselves in this mindset, the rulers don't have to openly expose the true basis of their control, their willingness to initiate violence against the people.

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Beliefs (Part 1)

So,

I've been giving this topic lots of thought, off and on, for quite some time and have not been able to put my thoughts into any easy order.  That means that I will once again be using this blog as a rough draft to make some sense of the topic and I will, once again, probably be meandering all over the place.

Standard Operating Procedures.

Yup.

In reading Lynette's blog, I came across something that she said that really resonated with me and I told her so.  She said she had been reading a book that brought me to mind and recommended that I read it.  I downloaded Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior by David R. Hawkins to my Kindle and have been reading it.  I'm only about 20% through the book but I'm intrigued and it has rekindled something in me that goes right along with my thoughts on Belief.

One thing that I know I need to do is be nicer to the cult members and minions.  I don't go out trolling but I have certainly been less than kind on my blog.  While I can rationalize the reasons for this because I can say what I want on my blog and they are doing far worse to me, it actually doesn't fit with what I would like to see happen for a number of reasons.  It may actually cause them to dig in deeper to defend their religion and it's really not fair.  It's not entirely their fault that they don't understand things.  I saw a video this week that explained it nicely.  Serendipity at work.

Picking on cult members is like having a spelling bee with contestants that don't speak English.

Spell the word, "Violence."

Could you use the word in a sentence?

I'm not sure how I have escaped the Matrix and to be clear, I'm still trying to teach myself.  I still go out looking for truth and I'm trying to teach myself to think better.  It's an important skill and one that I want to be able to pass on to my kids.  My wife and I discuss it often but we are at a point where we feel we need a better understanding of the concepts before we will be able to adequately pass them on.

There are a few things to note about my intention for a kinder and gentler blog in regards to cult members and minions.

1. I am naturally sarcastic and snarky and one of the voices in my head is even worse.  So, this may be a work in progress.
2. The good intentions are aimed at the cult members and the minions.  Their prophets are still fair game.  Failing to point out the evil would be a disservice to humankind.

Unfortunately, time is going to require that I split this up over at least one more post, if not more.

Let me leave you with something completely unrelated that I found funny.  I was looking around for information yesterday and Googled, "Obama pays travel expenses."

Success Warrior blog was the number 1 hit.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Git-r-done.

Larry the Cable Guy will be out here tomorrow.

***

Follow me on Twitter to get updates on when new posts show up on this blog (plus get random thoughts on the life of Success Warrior) and feel free to "friend" me on Facebook.

Success Warrior is an Independent BeachBody Coach for BeachBody.com, a company that offers fitness programs, supplements, and equipment that have absolutely changed my life.

Have you heard of P90X? That's BeachBody. They also have Insanity, Turbo Jam, TurboFire, RevAbs, Brazil Butt Lift, and many more. They have some of the best exercise programs on the market. These aren't just DVDs but are complete programs to transform your body. They also have the hugely popular, and what they call "the most important meal of the day", Shakeology. Go HERE to learn the most inexpensive way to get Shakeology.

They have equipment and supplements in addition to Shakeology and popular exercise programs. Visit BeachBody.com and click on the "Shop" link to see everything they offer.

There is also a business side to all this fitness that you can take advantage of. Whether you're looking to just make a couple hundred extra dollars in fun money or are looking to take complete financial control of your life, BeachBody can help you get there. If you have a desire to be more fit and would love to help other people do the same while making some money at it, visit BeachBody.com and click on the "Coach" link. Team up with me and I'll help you reach your goals, in fitness and finance.

Back to the Books

 
So,

College started back up today and thus begins the hardest part of the term.  I never seem to complete my "school-break" projects before the school break is over.  This means that for the first week or two, I'm trying to amp up on the college stuff while completing the projects.  I did take about 4 days off completely from everything - work, school, and projects, and this could be part of the problem. 

I barely glanced through my class schedules this morning so I'm not sure how we're looking on "Homework Help" topics.  I have Business Law though, so I'm thinking that there should be some good discussions that stem from that.  Maybe we'll talk about ethics and justice.  =)

Speaking of which, I never did get to point out a couple things that I was hoping to get to: The United States justice system.  I just wanted to toss out a couple of quick thoughts and see what everyone else thought on the sub-topics.  Both stem from same initial thought and branch (as my mind is so prone to do):

The idea of justice as generally accepted is that when someone does something to harm someone else, they should be punished.

1.  Where possible, wouldn't it be better to make amends rather than punish someone?  Both in practical terms and in the whole new-age woo-woo concept.  If someone stole $1,000, wouldn't it be better to have them pay the money back rather than throw them in jail?

2.  When legislators pull statutes out of their asses where no one is being harmed, is it really "justice" to punish people for not doing what law-makers want them to do "cuz they said so"?

Justice

 
For example, words can't do this picture justice.

So,

I wanted to get into the topic of "Justice" but I'm not going to have much time for exploring today.  To start, I want to ask a couple of questions just to get things rolling.

When spoken of in general terms, do you think that the fifth definition of justice from dictionary.com is what comes to mind for most people?

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

How important do you feel it is that justice is done?

Moral versus Ethical

 
So,

I took my final today and I felt like it went okay.  Just okay.  Sometimes, I walk away from a test knowing that I hit it out of the park.  That's how I felt after my philosophy test.  This one.  Not so much.  I may have missed some small details. 

The up-side of it is that I have three weeks off and I'm going to take a week off from work during the three weeks and this time, I'm going to take a break.  Next week, I'm going to be installing new flooring in the dining/kitchen area.  Whee . . .

Let's get to today's question because I plan on taking a break from thinking for a couple of days.

-

-

Weird.  I was sure the voices would have something to say.  Maybe they've already started their break.

Okay, to start, here are a couple of definitions from Dictionary.com:

Moral

1.  of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

Ethical

1.  pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Some people used these words interchangeably because their definitions are so similar.

The question(s):

Are they interchangeable to you?

If not, what is the difference in the way that you use them?

My New Bug Zapper (pic)

 
So,

Damn!  I ran smack dab right into a bit of homework that actually had me stumped today and while taking several hours to find the solution, I completely forgot about my blog.  It turns out that the reason that I was so stumped was because I was trying to solve the problem using a method that has not been taught to us yet.  That does make things a bit more difficult, but . . .

(And I bring this next part up in special consideration to Mrs. Chili, CV Rick, JohnM, and anyone else who happened to post anything today about the incredibly sad state of education in the United States)

I solved the problem by finding the resources to teach myself how to solve the problem in the way that I wanted to solve it.  Yeah, that probably added another hour or so onto my homework but the problem was solved much more elegantly and it's information that I will be using again (in fact, as soon as next week). 

And, so as to not leave Jewbacca out of today's post since he was kind enough to interrupt my self-teaching time for the incredibly amazing news that a baseball diamond is actually a square that looks like a diamond because of how it is placed in the stadium (although I did not know that it had sides of 90 feet), I offer my solution to his problem:

double hypotenuse (double a, double b)
{
double c = sqrt ( pow( a, 2.0) + pow ( b, 2.0));
return c;
}

int main ()
{
double x = 90.0, y = 10.0;
cout << hypotenuse ( x, y);
return 0;
}

I left out some of the more basic stuff but I'm sure you knew that and can fill them in.

And now, to the point of this blog because I am still not done with homework and it looks like it's going to carry over to tomorrow, which I really try to avoid.  Once the weekend arrives, my time becomes very scarce and I get nervous about school stuff going undone and I would hate to see that happen.

Here's a pic of my new, certified green technology, bug zapper, installed on my back porch:

 
What do you think of that?

Remember The True Meaning

 
The Sun has started its journey back to the northern hemisphere.  Without the sun, we would all die.  With the sun's resurrection, mankind is saved.  (It's the same for the southern hemisphere although they should technically celebrate Christmas in 6 months.  Unfortunately for our friends to the south, the guys that created the myth of Jesus being born on Christmas lived in the northern hemisphere and had to find a way to let the Romans keep their sun celebration while converting them to Christianity - sorry).

Long time readers are well aware of my love of the sun and the true meaning of this day never escapes me.  Ever. 

Merry Christmas!

TSA, Morality, and How To Fix It (NSFW)

So,

It seems that while I was disconnected from the Internets, there has been some upheaval about TSA's practice of taking naked pictures of men, women, and children and if those people refused to have naked pictures taken, of being fondled and groped by sexual predators wearing magical costumes that free them from the bonds of morality.  A couple of my friends have blogged about it, Ron Paul has apparently spoken out several times in the last week about it, and it's in the forums and blogosphere in general.

The media has actually been shocking in the fact that they have been reporting some of the atrocities and lies that have been spewed by the sleazebags trying to quiet the fears of the public who don't want to be photographed naked or felt up by complete strangers.

For instance, the public was assured that the naughty bits would be blocked out so that the perverts in the viewing booth wouldn't see breasts and genitalia.  Obviously, if you have one ounce of common sense, you knew at the same instant that this assurance was uttered that it was complete and utter bullshit.  You don't announce to the world where they can hide things to board an airplane.  You also don't block out the naughty bits after the underwear bomber incident.  I am hoping that all of my readers are smart enough to know that when you are put in the "hold up" position (so appropriate, don't you think?) that all of your naughty bits are on view to the sex offender in the booth.

Also, there was the assurance that none of the images were saved.  Yeah, well, that's been blown out of the water as well but it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is a camera on every cell phone today so even if the machine didn't keep the images, the degenerate in the booth could snap pics of anyone he finds pleasing to keep for himself or text off to his friends.  He could download them to his computer if he wants so that he can jack off to the image of your 14 year old daughter at his pleasure.

Then there's the fact that with a simple "color invert", you get to see what the deviants in the viewing booth get to see.

Seen here is a "color invert" from the image above.  The person that posted this said that he used a low resolution program to tone down the image for his viewers.  The TSA will be looking at the highest resolution that money can buy so it's a good bet that they'll be able to count your pubic hairs from the picture that they get to take, keep, and text to their friends.

The fact that everything that was put forth from the TSA is a lie shouldn't come as any kind of surprise.  Do you really expect sexual deviants to be honest and forthright. 

"Yeah, it takes naked pictures of your kids that we'll enhance, store, and use to get our rocks off on at night, uh, for your protection, of course."

Not exactly the press release that you would expect to hear.

 My blogger friends are on the right track with what they are going to do about it, although I would add a couple of extra steps to see if it has better effect.  Ron Paul, on the other hand, is giving out the same useless drivel as a solution for the immoral acts done by people in the government - tell Congress that you don't like it.

There are two problems with Ron Paul's suggestion.

1.  He's asking you to beg for a little decency from some of the most evil people on the planet.

2.  He's asking you to use English to speak to them, a language that doesn't get results.

These are some of the most immoral and violent people in the world and you're supposed to send them an email saying that you don't like deviants fondling your kids and they are going to listen?  The rulers of the United States kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.  They destroy human bodies, water supplies, hospitals, and entire countries if the price is right.  They will support despotic and tyrannical leaders if those leaders will keep the people out of the way and they don't care how the despot keeps the people in check.  Compared with the murder of millions of people over the years, what's a little bit of voyeurism?  Does being fondled by strangers even move the needle on their shock-ometer?

Do I even have to bring up the track record of previous attempts at begging?  Or the "vote the bums out/vote new bums in" strategy to "send them a message"?

With this understanding, that the rulers are immoral and that even within their own framework are considered incredibly corrupt, you know that using the English language, persuasion, logic, morality, decency, and rational arguments is a complete waste of time.  The language that they speak is money.  You have to pay them to do what you want them to do.  The nudie body scanners weren't put in place because they were the best thing or the safest thing or even because they are effective.  Lobbyists paid the rulers  to enact the laws so that the companies that sell them could make billions of dollars in profit.

This brings up a bit of a conundrum for the average citizen and for the rulers as well.

In order to get what you want from the rulers, you have to pay them millions of dollars.  Unfortunately, while Americans do pay billions of dollars, they don't get a choice on where the money goes or whether or not they pay it.  The people in the government take the money with intimidation and threats, which completely negates the power Americans would have if they got to choose where their money went.  Once the people in the government rob Americans of 50% of their money, there's not a whole lot left over for lobbying bribing people.

On the ruler's side is the puzzle of how to get their hands on some of those billions of dollars without it being way too obvious that they are personally benefiting from the theft of all that money.  This is where third party lobbyists come into play.  The rulers give a corporation several billion dollars worth of business at the expense of the people that have been robbed.  The corporation then gives the rulers millions of dollars in "consulting fees" and "campaign contributions" and other semantic phrases used in place of the word "bribe".  This gives the rulers a way to take money from the people they rule and put it into their own pocket.  It also adds insult to injury for those that see what's really going on.

You see, while the people are up in arms about strangers copping a feel on them and jerking off to naked pictures of their teenage daughters, the reality of the situation is that those same people are the ones that are funding the offensive actions.  The people that are being sexually victimized and having their children abused are the ones that are paying for it.  It's far beyond cruelly ironic.

As to Ron Paul's suggestion, unless it's an assignment for your high school brainwashing civics class, I would send your email to someone that might be able to make a difference.

The first step to fixing the problem has been pointed out by my fellow bloggers - stop flying.  There are many forms of violence and abuse being handed down by people in the government that can't be avoided but in this case, we can avoid airports.  There is some concern that after the next mall or school shooting, that we'll see the implementation of naked body scanners become more prolific but for now, we can deal with the airports. 

If you are an adult and want to fly and have no qualms about people seeing you naked or feeling you up, then by all means, go ahead and fly.  At that point, we're talking about consensual actions taken by adults.  It amounts to prostitution since you are paying them to grope you but I have no problems with that.  That's your choice as a consenting adult.

However, if you are a parent and you subject your kids to this form of abuse, that I can't condone.  There are countless videos out there now of TSA workers taking clothes off of children and inappropriately touching the kids.  The kids are, very understandably, freaking out about having strangers molest them.  The parents are allowing this to happen.  The parents are helping it happen.  The parents are paying for it to happen.  The parents are helping to hold these frightened, screaming, wailing, kids still so that a pedophile claiming to be free of the bounds of morality can sexually abuse the kids.

If you do this to your kids, you have no right being a parent.  Please, give your children up for adoption immediately to someone that will properly take care of them.

The second step is to speak the language of the rulers or find someone that can speak on your behalf.  Instead of sending an email to the people in Washington (who are the most appropriate subjects for RICO that there ever has been) send an email to every airline at your closest airport.  Let them know that you will not be flying until they rein in the TSA.  Let them know that you are going to pass the word on to everyone you know, that you will blog about it, that you will scream it from the rooftops, that you will stand in front of airports protesting the sex abuse, that you will spread the word in any way possible to get people to stop using their airline company until the abuse stops.

Southwest Airlines is one of the main airlines flying out of Salt Lake City and they have a public forum on their website.  Here's what people are telling them:

Will Southwest side with customers in protesting the TSA

Updated entry by haldoiron on November 24, 2010

I refuse to have the TSA subject me to their X-Ray machine, and I will not be sexually molested. Is Southwest prepared to loose my weekly business.

Why must I be seen without clothes?

Updated entry by Shinary on November 24, 2010

I love Southwest Airlines. Your people are upbeat and professional. Your planes get me to where I want to go in a timely manner, and your prices are very reasonable. Sadly, I have decided to stop traveling by air due to the new security procedure…

TSA Causes me to stop flying

Updated entry by Marcus3200 on November 24, 2010

In spite of the great service that SWA offers a good prices, I am afraid that my flying days are over. I will not submit to the full-body scans being implemented by the TSA nor will I consent to the extraordinarily intrusive pat-down being offered i…

These three were one after another.  This is the topic and this is the message.  Nothing else that Southwest (or any other airline) does to improve their service can offset the sexual abuse of its customers.

This is what has to be done.  You have to convince all the airlines to spend their lobby bribe money fighting against the nudie machine lobbyists.  The laws and the rulers that create those laws are sold to the highest bidder so you have to find someone that will take your side and spend millions of dollars buying politicians and upper level bureaucrats.  If you take away enough business from the airlines, they will outbid the nudie business and buy a change in the rules to do away with the sexual abuse of their customers.

When it comes to discussing what you want the people in the government to do: money talks - email is deleted by an intern that is also doing sexual favors for his boss.

Stop flying and be very vocal to the airline companies that you are done using their service until they fix it.

The third step is to come to the realization that there are no double standards when it comes to morality.

You can't write down on a piece of paper that you are somehow exempt from all morality while everyone else in the world has to be moral or you'll taze them. 

I have said it before and I will say it again and again.  There is no such things as the means justifying the end because there are means.  Every mean is an end unto itself.  Every end is a means to the next end.  People cannot commit immoral acts claiming that it will bring about morality.  The sexual abuse of every person that flies on an airplane is in itself creating far more immorality than there would otherwise be.  People cannot sexually abuse millions of men, women, and children and claim that they are doing it to keep the victims safe.  They are inflicting abuse on victims, plain and simple.  They are the biggest threat to personal safety that will seen by passengers all that day.

You know too, that applications to the TSA from sex offenders and pedophiles without criminal records have just gone through the roof.  I mean, this is an absolute dream job for them.  For their entire life, they have had to live secret double lives, hiding their desires from other people for fear of being called despicable and depraved and being ostracized from society.  The instant that the Human Resources representative hands them a bit of plastic, an ID card that has their name on it along with the letters T - S - A, they can come out of the closet.  In that instant, when the card leaves the HR hand and lands in the predator's hand, immorality is changed to morality.  What they could never admit or do pubicly for their entire lives now becomes a daily event, not just allowed but expected.  It becomes a duty for them to violate people sexually, in order to keep those people safe.  They can talk about how much they deplore that the world has come to the point where this job is necessary, while they volunteer for all the overtime shifts that they can get their quivering, anxious hands on.

The plastic that goes into those ID cards has to got to be something so special and so rare to give it the magical properties to instantly change morality by 180 degrees.  I'll bet they keep the raw plastic for those ID cards in Fort Knox.  They would have to, wouldn't they?  What if anyone at all could get their hands on this stuff?  What if you or I could get our hands on this plastic?

Not that you or I would be sexual predators of course but what if you needed a bit of extra cash for Christmas and you had access to this plastic.  You could put your name on it with the letters I - R - S and you would instantly have the "right" to take money from other people through force and intimidation.  There are so many 3 letter agencies out there that I'm sure that if you found any of your desires blocked by morality, you could print up some card that would completely reverse the laws of morality for you.  Seriously, the plastic in these ID cards has got to be some supremely magical shit and must be one of the most closely guarded secrets of the people in the government.

Back to reality.  People cannot do evil and claim that it is good.  Well, they can claim it but it is our duty (if we want to make things better) to point out that it's complete bullshit and to stop it where we can.  And, in this case, we do have a little bit of power, if only vicariously.

You want the sexual abuse at airports to stop?

1.  Stop flying. 

2.  Tell all of the airlines that you have stopped using their service.

3.  Hold every single person to the exact same moral standards and draw attention to any double standards.