If you want to know what the United States would look like after this bill is passed, just look at what’s been happening in Russia: The Russian government has been crushing dissent under the pretext of enforcing copyright law.
America’s Future: Russia and China Use Copyright Laws to Crush Government Criticism (via azspot)(via azspot)
“The powers with which the U.S. Government has vested itself would be disturbing and odious no matter the magnitude of the highlighted threat. But the fact that they’re now reduced to bottom-of-the-barrel screeching about Twitter Terrorism — while simultaneously claiming the “legal authority” to force the closing of social media accounts — reveals just how wide is the gap between the magnitude of the powers they seek and the magnitude of the threat they cite to justify them. As always, the War on Terror is not a means to an end; it is the end in itself.”
(Photo) See, Iran is a threat to all those US bases surrounding it
(via omchomsky)
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
The late Christopher Hitchens
Late Night Snack: RIP Christopher Hitchens
(via think4yourself)
(via think4yourself)
Make the lie big enough, and tell it often enough, and the people will believe it. -
Barack ObamaAdolph Hitler
(Source: conservativegirl, via fucknobigbrother)
Less than a month after he threatened to veto terrifying legislation that would cease constitutional rights as we know it, Obama has revoked his warning and plans to authorize a bill allowing indefinite detention and torture of Americans.
BERNIE SANDERS IS GOING TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED BUT HE NEEDS OUR HELP!
OK people. HERE WE GO REBLOG THIS EVERYWHERE! THIS IS IMPORTANT!
BERNIE SANDERS NOW INTRODUCING The Saving American Democracy Amendment which states that:
- Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
- Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
- Corporations may not make campaign contributions.
- Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
Signal Boost
(via solitaryforager)
(Source: holymotherofrowling, via omchomsky)
All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.
George Orwell (via citizensanonymous)
A 99 percent crowdfunded ad ran in the SF Chronicle today. New media movement meets old-style print.
This would be great, but the corporations in charge wouldn’t allow it.
(via solitaryforager)
A peer-reviewed paper is set to appear in the Journal of Business ethics which proposes the theory that psychopaths on Wall Street have had a critical role in the global financial crisis.
Psychopathy is defined as the inability to empathize with the feelings of others. A theoretical paper, to be published in the Journal of Business ethics, will analyze the global financial crisis through the lens of the psychopath. The paper is titled “The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis,” and it is written by Clive R. Boddy.
Boddy describes psychopaths as “the 1% of people who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves.” An echo of the Occupy’s nemesis the 1%? Perhaps.
Of course, this theory is not new—many have theorized a connection between the modern psychological sickness, including Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri in their seminal work “Anti Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.” (Note that schizophrenia and psychopathy are not the same, of course.) Boddy, of course, notes the current tradition in this theory in his paper. I wrote of this connection in “World Wealth Report: Rich Getting Richer,” in which I stated, “Is it not psychopathic, and more particularly sociopathic, that the world’s rich seem to have no problem that they are drawing more water from the well than the rest of us, even as the rich men of the US congressional and executive branches ask for austerity both here and abroad?”
Robert Jay Lifton has spent the better part of the last 60 years defining and cataloguing Psycho-History, so why not open studies into something like Psycho-Capitalism? Or, rather, Psycho-Corporatism? Brett Easton Ellis all but theorized the same thing in “American Psycho” with Patrick Bateman—it certainly needs a greater degree of theoretical work from academics and philosophers and should be made public.
Boddy uses terms such as “dark leadership,” “dark manager” and “imposters as leaders,” noting that business (and government) have more and more been elevating individuals to positions of power who cannot be said to care for the entire organizations that oversee and represent them.
That Boddy is willing to use the term “corporate psychopath” in a peer-reviewed theoretical paper is bold. Boddy deserves to be heard outside the realm of theory, though. His theoretical proposal, which is in fact the argument of all who aren’t dark leaders, should be part of the national discourse.
In the introduction, Boddy writes of corporate psychopaths:
[T]hey seem to be unaffected by the corporate collapses they have created. They present themselves as glibly unbothered by the chaos around them, unconcerned about those who have lost their jobs, savings, and investments, and as lacking any regrets about what they have done. They cheerfully lie about their involvement in events are very persuasive in blaming others for what has happened and have no doubts about their own continued worth and value. They are happy to walk away from the economic disaster that they have managed to bring about, with huge payoffs and with new roles advising governments how to prevent such economic disasters.
Boddy notes that corporate psychopaths have also been termed Executive Psychopaths, Industrial Psychopaths, Organisational Psychopaths, and Organisational Sociopaths.
The author concludes by writing, “When presented to management academics in discussion, the Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis is accepted as being plausible and highly relevant. It provides a theory which unifies many of the individual interpretations of the reasons for the Global Financial Crisis and as such is worthy of further development.
To read the full paper in PDF format, go here.
(Source: solitaryforager)
Police militarization is now an ingrained part of American culture. SWAT teams are featured in countless cop reality shows, and wrong-door raids are the subject of “The Simpsons” bits and search engine commercials. Tough-on-crime sheriffs now sport tanks and hardware more equipped for battle in a war zone than policing city streets. Seemingly benign agencies such as state alcohol control boards and the federal Department of Education can now enforce laws and regulations not with fines and clipboards, but with volatile raids by paramilitary police teams.
Outraged by the Occupy crackdowns, some pundits and political commentators who paid little heed to these issues in the past are now calling for a national discussion on the use of force. That’s a welcome development, but it’s helpful to review how we got here in order to have an honest discussion.
Part of the trend can be attributed to the broader tough-on-crime and drug war policies pushed by politicians of both parties since at least the early 1980s, but part of the problem also lies with America’s political culture. Public officials’ decisions today to use force and the amount of force are as governed by political factors as by an honest assessment of the threat a suspect or group may pose. Over the years, both liberals and conservatives have periodically raised alarms over the government’s increasing willingness to use disproportionately aggressive force. And over the years, both sides have tended to hush up when the force is applied by political allies, directed at political opponents, or is used to enforce the sorts of laws they favor. +
(via purehemp)




