Death Rattle Sports

Ron Paul M.D. says: Vaccines are Bad Policy

Jesse Herman — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:22:45 +0000

Digging through the archives at vaccinationcouncil.org you can find Dr. Ron Paul opposing certain vaccines for things like smallpox. As Ron Paul stated, the odds of an extreme side-effect from small pox is small but so are the odds of getting small box to begin with. This was all in response to the government considering mandating mass inoculations for more than one million military personnel and civilian medical workers.

His main issue was not with the vaccination itself, which for some individuals may be needed but with the fact that the government feels it should have the right to make that choice for you. Vaccination is a medical decision by an individual and the decision should be between them and their doctor.

In the article Dr. Paul says:

The possibility that the federal government could order vaccines is real. Provisions buried in the 500-page homeland security bill give federal health bureaucrats virtually unchecked power to declare health emergencies. Specifically, it gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services — in my view one of the worst of all federal agencies — power to declare actual or potential bioterrorist emergencies; to administer forced “countermeasures,” including vaccines, to individuals or whole groups; and to extend the emergency declaration indefinitely.

He then goes on to finish:

Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all.

Sound familiar Ron Paul fans? It should, as his overall message and principles behind them are basically the same now at the age of 76 as they were back in 1992.

Another interesting article was written by Dr. Lorraine Day in 2009. She rails against vaccines in general, specifically those mandated for kids to go to school. She writes:

Vaccinations are now mandatory in order for a student to enter school. Any child who is not vaccinated is not allowed into school with the reason given that that child will put all the other children at risk for disease. However, it is important to ask this question. If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.

But, in fact, vaccinations don’t work! They are not effective! They do not give immunity! In addition, they are very dangerous!

She raises a very good point: If your child is vaccinated and these vaccines actually work, then there should not be anything to worry about if a parent chooses not to vaccinate their children, right?

The major issue in addition to the bit shared above deals with it’s effectiveness and with potential side-effects in injecting young children with vaccines.

Dr. Day goes on to discuss how the hysteria that lead to the vaccines may have been misplaced and the credit for eliminated threats such as Polio is in question:

Polio is virtually non-existent in the United States today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Before the Salk polio vaccine was introduced in 1953, the polio death rate in the United States had already declined by 47% on its own. It had also declined by 55% in England. Other European countries also showed a similar decline. When the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to inoculate their citizens. Yet polio epidemics also ended in those countries.

The number of reported cases of polio after mass inoculations with the vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations. And in many states the incidence of polio more than doubled after inoculations were introduced. In Rhode Island there was a 450 % increase, and in Massachusetts almost a 650 % increase in polio cases after the introduction of polio vaccinations.

The same situation holds true for nearly all other diseases including diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps and whooping cough. In virtually all of these diseases, the incidence was dropping dramatically before the introduction of the vaccine. And since the introduction of the vaccine, close to 100% of all cases of the disease are in individuals who have been vaccinated for that particular disease, proving clearly, that vaccinations are not effective and they often cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent.

Unfortunately the same holds true for flu shots according to Dr. Day. Last years flu shot is totally ineffective against this years flu. The best way to prevent a flu is a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Given the fact that vaccines have been linked to cancer and other conditions later in life, it is important that you do your research and get professional opinions before following through with a vaccine or flu shot, especially with babies and young kids. It never hurts to exercise caution before injecting youth with mild forms of diseases and germs they are aimed to protect against.

Terrorism Expert Brian Michael Jenkins: NDAA is Counterproductive

Jesse Herman — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:40:52 +0000

According to a recent article, military custody is counterproductive and the numbers do not lie. The article is authored by Briant Michael Jenkins, who is an expert on terrorism and transportation security.

The National Defense Authorization Act enables the military to detain suspected terrorist indefinitely, which may or may not include United States citizens without the courts system involvement in any way. In sum, it will be treated as an act of war and US citizens can lose all rights because the government says so.

In looking at the bill, hypothesizing if it had been around since 2001, it does not appear it would have accomplished anything the court systems have already. Most suspected terrorists have gone through the court systems and are now serving extensive time in jail.

Jenkins then goes on to state:

The new bill could also adversely affect popular attitudes in the communities in which radicalization and jihadist recruitment occur. Since it applies only to suspects who are members of, or substantially support, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other terrorist forces, the NDAA will alienate communities in the United States whose cooperation is vital. In more than a third of the jihadist cases since 9/11, the American Muslim community was the source of the initial tip that eventually led to an arrest. Given that such information could now lead to indefinite detention without trial on the basis of suspicion alone, that cooperation may decline.

The big question is when will the ‘war on terrorism’ end. Senator Lindsey Graham in a recent interview almost made it sound like it could never end. But what if it does it, what then? Well if a war ends and people have been detained by the military, they are released. Again this is a great point and is completely counterproductive to what most people think the National Defense Authorization Act will accomplish.

In all, this is the clearest argument against NDAA around besides the obvious points of it violating the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Bravo to Brian Michael Jenkins and hopefully Americans can wake up to the fact that not only have we lost our rights but we became a weaker nation because of it.

Brian Michael Jenkins in his article concerning NDAA poured through many of the arrests and revealed that they are doing the job without stripping American Citizens of their born rights. After citing several examples he says:

In sum, even in the absence of the NDAA, terrorists have not escaped punishment. In fact, prosecutors obtained convictions in almost 90 percent of the terrorism-related cases. And most of the men involved in terrorist plots are now in prison for the rest of their lives.

The legal process that put them there was entirely transparent. Stripped of their political pretensions, those charged with terrorism-related crimes have been brought before the courts as ordinary criminals. Judges and juries decide their guilt not on their basis of the defendants’ beliefs but on the basis of their actions. Whether indefinite detention without trial or military custody for the small number of accused would have produced a significantly better outcome is debatable.

By treating terrorists as special and making war crimes out of intent, you are creating heroes to the terrorist movement. If we put them through the courts, we would be showing they are not anything but thug criminals. Instead, we elevate their status and create poster boys aspiring terrorist thugs can look up to in hopes to carrying out a future attack. Like most things that restrict personal liberties, the blowback is much worse than any positive notions associated with indefinite detention.

The other pro NDAA argument goes that the United States loses out on valuable intelligence when a suspected terrorist is enabled to get a lawyer. But it turns out the opposite is true because when a criminal is arrested, the can plea bargain and release information for a lesser sentence. In addition, when local, state and federal authorities are involved it opens up cases to a number of investigators, which are stifled when the military steps in.

Study Shows Pain Relief Approach, Without Drugs

Zeit — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:13:20 +0000

Placebos reduce pain by creating an expectation of relief. Distraction—say, doing a puzzle—relieves it by keeping the brain busy. But do they use the same brain processes? Neuromaging suggests they do. When applying a placebo, scientists see activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. That’s the part of the brain that controls high-level cognitive functions like working memory and attention—which is what you use to do that distracting puzzle. Now a new study challenges the theory that the placebo effect is a high-level cognitive function. The authors—Jason T. Buhle, Bradford L. Stevens, and Jonathan J. Friedman of Columbia University and Tor D. Wager of the University of Colorado Boulder—reduced pain in two ways – either by giving them a placebo, or a difficult memory task. lacebo. But when they put the two together, “the level of pain reduction that people experienced added up. There was no interference between them,” says Buhle. “That suggests they rely on separate mechanisms.” The findings, published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, could help clinicians maximize pain relief without drugs.

In the study, 33 participants came in for three separate sessions. In the first, experimenters applied heat to the skin with a little metal plate and calibrated each individual’s pain perceptions. In the second session, some of the people applied an ordinary skin cream they were told was a powerful but safe analgesic. The others put on what they were told was a regular hand cream. In the placebo-only trials, participants stared at a cross on the screen and rated the pain of numerous applications of heat—the same level, though they were told it varied. For other trials they performed a tough memory task—distraction and placebo simultaneously. For the third session, those who’d had the plain cream got the “analgesic” and vice versa. The procedure was the same.

The results: With either the memory task or the placebo alone, participants felt less pain than during the trials when they just stared at the cross. Together, the two effects added up; they didn’t interact or interfere with each other. The data suggest that the placebo effect does not require executive attention or working memory. So what about that neuroimaging? “Neuroimaging is great,” says Buhle, “but because each brain region does many things, when you see activation in a particular area, you don’t know what cognitive process is driving it.” This study tested the theory about how placebos work with direct behavioral observation.

The findings are promising for pain relief. Clinicians use both placebos and distraction—for instance, virtual reality in burn units. But they weren’t sure if one might diminish the other’s efficacy. “This study shows you can use them together,” says Buhle, “and get the maximum bang for your buck without medications.” View Source

Beyond the Bubble Economy: How Can We Stimulate the Real Economy?

Dr Robert Muller — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:47:00 +0000

Public anger at the 2008 Wall Street bailout, concerns about debt, and a deep and pervasive fear that another financial crash is just a matter of time create an important moment of opportunity for a long overdue public conversation about the purpose of financial services and the necessary steps to assure that the financial sector fulfills that purpose.

Much of the recent discussion of financial reform has centered on limiting Wall Street excesses to curb fraud and reduce the risk of another financial crash. This is vitally important, but it does not address the issue raised by Sheila Bair shortly before she stepped down last year as FDIC chair:

“In policy terms, the success of the financial sector is not an end in itself, but a means to an end - which is to support the vitality of the real economy and the livelihood of the American people. What really matters to the life of our nation is enabling entrepreneurs to build new businesses that create more well-paying jobs, and enabling families to put a roof over their heads and educate their children.”

It is very straightforward. The proper purpose of the financial services sector is to serve the real economy on which everyone depends for their daily needs, their quality of life, and their opportunity to be creative, contributing members of their communities.

The proper purpose of the financial services sector is to serve the real economy on which everyone depends for their daily needs. By this standard of performance, Wall Street does not serve us well.

By this standard of performance, Wall Street does not serve us well. Indeed, Wall Street’s most lavish rewards go not to those who enable others to create wealth, but rather to those most skilled and ruthless in expropriating the wealth of others - behavior condemned as immoral by every major religion.

To justify their actions, Wall Street players and their apologists turn reality and logic on their heads by treating growth in the size and profitability of the financial sector as an end in itself, and a measure of increasing sector efficiency.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/beyond-the-bubble-economy?utm_source=wkly20120203&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=titleKorten

MIT Researchers Find a Way To Make Solar Panels from Grass Clippings

Zeit — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:19:49 +0000

What if generating solar energy at home required little more than mixing some grass clippings with inexpensive chemicals? That’s exactly what MIT researcher Andreas Mershin has found to be the case. The scientist says creating a solar cell could be as easy as mixing any green organic material (grass clippings, agricultural waste) with a bag of custom chemicals and painting the mixture on a roof. Once the efficiency of Mershin’s system is improved, this type of solar technology could make cheap energy available in rural places and developing countries where people don’t have access to affordable energy. Read on to see a video of Mershin’s findings.

Here at Inhabitat, we’ve been following biophotovoltaics — devices that generate energy from photosynthesis — and although the possibilities are limitless, most of the existing technology is very expensive and a long way from reaching the market. In a study published in Scientific Reports, Mershin and his fellow researchers have come up with a process to “hijack” the PS-I molecules that are responsible for photosynthesis. As Mershin explains in this video, in order to get these molecules to work for us, we must extract the protein that’s at the center of photosynthesis and stabilize it so that it continues to live and operate in a solar panel.

Mershin and his team developed an intricate nanostructure of titanium dioxide supported by nanowires, which carry a flow of current. The system is able to convert just 0.1 percent of sun energy to electricity — over four orders of magnitude better than previous biophotovoltaic systems — but that percentage will need to be improved upon further before the technology can be useful. The breakthrough “carries the promise of inexpensive and environmentally friendly solar power,” according to the study, and Mershin hopes that within a few years someone in a remote village will be able to take some grass clippings, mix them with some chemicals, and paint them on the roof to produce power.

View Source

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Strike 3 You’re Out

Jesse Herman — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:50:31 +0000

Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz talks a great game in her role as President Obama pit bull. She constantly talks about how Democrats care about the middle class and the poor, while Republicans don’t. Waxing poetic about the differences of the two parties, she can be very convincing in her rhetoric. When it comes to issues that most American citizens agree on though, she sides with Republicans and big business.

That’s right, she bats 0-3 on the three big issues of the day that are an assault to the constitution and individual rights: PIPA, SOPA and NDAA. Wasserman Schultz, a recipient of $569,428 in contributions from interest groups supporting SOPA, leads all members of the Florida delegation from these interest groups. Even after the public public outcry Wasserman Schultz has stood firm in her stance to destroy the internet.

According to MapLight.org, interst groups supportign the bill contributed rought five tiems more money to house members than interest groups that oppose it ($85 million to $17 million).

The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee has letdown the American people and basks in the glory or propping the left-right paradigm. She votes for the Democratic side of things nearly 100% of the time and as evidenced above except when it matters most.

According to an IBOPE Zogby Interactive survey, Republicans (30%) are more likely to say they support the NDAA than Independents (22%) and Democrats (21%).

The House official vote tally on its website and it shows that 190 Republicans voted for the NDAA bill and 43 voted against it, while 93 Democratic representatives voted for and 93 voted against it. Again, this shows she disagress with Republicans on everything, except when it comes to measures that threaten our liberty and strengthen her interest groups.

She is just another in a long line of corrupt politicians who will stop at nothing to spin a web of deceit. Nobody is better at making the Republicans sound bigoted, extreme and corrupt than Wasserman Schultz. She is a favorite on MSNBC and other liberal leaning mainstream news sites. She has climbed her way to the top doing the exact things she continually rails against, opposing the views people that vote for her.

Her most recent actions have been her leveraging Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shooting, using the incident to attack the TEA Party, implying their conduct is extreme and reading Giffords resignation letter.

It is unclear why she opposes the will of her voters and American people in general. It is too bad though given her talent that she has chosen to go down the path of tainted political discourse. She will spend all of 2012 trying to convince people why President Obama is good for America and hopefully everyone ignores her.

As is typical with mainline politicians, she calls OWS reasonable in their frustrations, yet refers to TEA Partiers as extreme. To most observers without bias, they are on opposite sides of the same fed up tent but common sense goes out the window when you are supporting the political structure.

Terrorists suspected of conspiring to party on Twitter

Jesse Herman — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:33:58 +0000

Our tax dollars are hard at work protecting us from suspected terrorist and protecting our ‘freedoms’. The latest plot to “destroy America” comes from two British kids flying in to LA. Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was handcuffed and kept under armed guard in a cell with Mexican drug dealers for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles with pal Emily Bunting.

The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: ‘Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?’

Leigh was also quizzed about another tweet which quoted hit US comedy Family Guy which read: ’3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up!

Damn that Famil Guy! Federal agents searched their bags and gave them and conducted a full body patdown. They were forced to answer ridiculous questions for 5 hours until they were sent to jail for the night. After that, they were sent back to Britain.

It is obvious this kids had no ill intent and by saying “destroy America” they were talking about partying, spending money and having fun. It is great to know just how closely Twitter is being monitored though. Could you imagine have the job of questioning these kids and making them feel like criminals? It is beyond pathetic.

Here is a great video by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano about just how useless this war on terror (and American citizens) has become.

Living with denormalisation

Leg-iron — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:21:00 +0000

Tomorrow, or rather later today since it's already Friday, there is a smoky-drinky. It's occurred to me that it's been some time since I hosted one of these events, but what the hell. The local smoky-drinky has sort of settled into one guy's house. I wonder if that's how pubs started?

He hasn't started brewing his own beer yet but there have been noises made about that possibility. Naturally he can't charge for it because that would constitute a 'business' and that would mean we can't smoke in there but we'd all chip in for the equipment and the kits and all help out with the brewing. I've done it from raw ingredients in the past and it's better than any kit - although by 'raw' I mean I did buy pre-malted barley and dried hops. Not quite first principles.

At the moment smoky-drinky is mainly a whisky event but as Prohibition spreads out from York, that might change things. Assuming it manages to break the natural barrier in Glasgow, that is.

The leisure industry and CAMRA will not stop the Puritans because they are still addicted to smoker-hating and have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the idea that anything but the smoking ban is causing the pubs to close. In the comments at the Curmudgeonly Bar, the blame for closing pubs is actually laid at the feet of the smokers. Pubs are closing because we smokers stopped going to places that didn't want our custom. Because we didn't want to freeze to death in an exposed 'shelter' you'd be jailed for keeping a pig in. It's currently -6C outside. Is it so surprising that I'm not planning on visiting the pub?

It's not some kind of 'smoker attack on pubs'. I haven't been inside a cinema or a restaurant since the ban came in and soon stopped using cafes too. It's not relaxing to be made unwelcome, so why on Earth would I pay extra for it? I drink my tea and coffee at home too, and bought an espresso machine a few years back as a direct result of the smoking ban. It's a Gaggia Cubika and it's excellent.

No, smokers did not 'crawl into the gutter and whisper disquiet'. We made alternative arrangements. Some now buy all their tobacco abroad, some from Man with a Van, some of us are even trying our hands at growing the stuff. We set up our own smoky-drinkies which cannot be clubs because that would invoke the smoking ban. They cannot be open to the general public because that would invoke the ban. No business can be conducted there because that would invoke the ban. We meet up, smoke, drink and talk just as we used to in the pub, and nobody is forced to go outside. So no, we don't need sympathy, we don't need pity, we don't care what the antismokers think and we don't need the pubs.

If the ban was repealed we are not likely to rush back to the pubs (if there are any left by then), but it's probable we would trickle back. We do, after all, quite like pubs. We didn't 'desert' them, we were thrown out.

However, if the day comes that we have a Government with a spine, and the insane eugenics-driven agenda is at last cast aside, all those smoky-drinkies will be ready to open for business. Probably as ale-houses first of all, offering home-brewed beers for pennies a pint. Which is where the pubs started.

It has been suggested that we all stop smoking so we can go to pubs again but a smoke and a drink go together for us. You might as well suggest we wear ear muffs in the cinema or only eat half of whatever we are served in a restaurant. A drink without a smoke is half the experience and yet you want us to pay extra for it?

It has been suggested that smokers should fight the ban by determinedly lighting up in pubs, but that would get us jail time and get the pub fined into bankruptcy. How does that help support the pubs? Besides, it would most likely be a CAMRA member who reported us and who caused the closure of that pub. We have no allies. Fat people sneer at us, people who like salt on their chips sneer at us, people who like sugar in their tea sneer at us, none of them can look past their smoker-hate to see the same thing coming their way even when it's already arrived. They'll just have to deal with denormalisation on their own. We have, and we're doing okay, thanks. You want help when the eugenics juggernaut hits you? No. We are non-persons and you antismokers did that to us. Find your own ways to cope.

Even the tobacco companies are no use at all. They are only now waking up to what 'plain packaging' actually means, when they could have been supporting their customers from the beginning. Screw the tobacco companies. They don't care about their customers. They only react when their profits are threatened. Tobacco grows in Scotland even in these inexpert hands so it'll grow almost anywhere.

I'm still planning to 'lose' some seeds this year but that won't work too early because of frost. I'm considering 'dropping' a few established plants into holes that 'just appeared' in waste ground to give them a better start. Further south, where the frost window closes earlier, wild tobacco is a real possibility. Here there is a saying 'Ne'er cast a clout till May is out' - which roughly translated means that anything planted outside before the end of May is likely to freeze to death.

Wild tobacco in Scotland is not likely to do that well. Since I have enough seed to plant half of Scotland I'm going to try anyway. If I visit Wales this year I'll be suggesting we take a drive over those empty, wild mountains.

So no, anonymous commenter, we did not 'crawl into the gutter and whisper disquiet'. We have been active, we just haven't bothered to tell anyone what we've been up to.

Why would we, when nobody listens to us anyway?
View Source

The Santa Claus Government

Dom Vasta — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:49:39 +0000

The pivotal question that is most disagreed upon by everyone in politics is “how much power should the state have?” Answers range from: totalitarianism, with the argument being that a state must control everything to maintain order, nothing can be entrusted to private interests because they might make mistakes; to anarchy, where all necessary services can be provided by the market. Most people that call themselves libertarians lie between a tiny state and no state, in a sort of limbo about whether the state should exist or not, I call them anarcho-curious.

Most statists see the state as a Santa Claus figure, giving goodies out to all the poor people and not giving any critical thought as to where those goodies really come from. I would imagine most people reading this would have some sort of critical thought and know that the government doesn’t magically great goodies to hand out. I would imagine that most people following this blog would be against a Santa Claus state. However I too believe that government should be like Santa, but in another way: unseen, unheard and questionable as the whether it even exists or not. This is a model that the anarcho-curious can quite easily grab on to and help perpetuate. Surely it’s harder to convince the statists that their belief in mandatory government is false than it is to tell them that the government is actually secretly in charge of everything and everything good that the free market does is actually the government. Just like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, children can grow up believing in government and when they come of age we can reveal to them that everything they thought the government was doing is being handled by private individuals working in the market. The statists will be happy thinking that government controls everything and will not seek to ruin our lives because they’re scared that if someone doesn’t control everything bad things will happen.

Of course there will have to be some changes, even the most die hard capitalists will admit there are some things that a free market cannot fix and naturally people will go looking for the government to get it to try and fix the unfixable as well as satisfy their need to vent their frustrations, I propose having a fake politician go around and pretend to listen to people, just like a department store Santa. People can come and air their grievances to these people. It would be a hard job listening to socialists whine all day, but it would be a necessary public service that I would gladly do to keep the socialists from bothering us and I could probably convince some of them that they owe taxes to me. As for voting, fake elections would be held every 3 years the voting would all be done online and all the candidates would be the same person in different disguises. Anyone wanting to run for office would have be given a 1900-number to call, an automated answering device would pick up and have them follow a never ending series of prompts and they would eventually get fed up and hang up. Parliamentary TV broadcasts like Question Time could just be a bunch of actors, some people might protest to ad breaks in parliament, but you can always fund it through product placement in speeches, and by the level of discourse you see in Question Time it would be more believable. Welfare is a bit trickier; trying to guilt recipients out of it hasn’t worked in the past; a better solution would be playing on their dogmatic faith in government and fear of the free market and say that welfare is actually capitalism in disguise.

The only downside to all this is that we will be forced to lie to our statist friends and family about what is really going on lest they become despondent and confused because they’ve just found out their whole world is a lie. You may have a friend that you really want to tell, but exposing them to the idea that they are actually responsible for their own actions and have been their entire life is a concept too shocking for most people. Just like a parent taking their hands off a kid’s bike when they’re learning to ride, it’s something that has to be done silently lest the rider lose confidence and crash. It’s up to you to keep your statist friends and family ignorant so they don’t freak out and actually try to govern us.

Clearly the Santa Claus model of government is the best. It allows everyone the level of government they want, all they have to do believe in it. The best thing is it’s not that different from the model we have now: A group of people that pretend to fix problems while wasting a lot of money, the only difference is we’re just adding another level of pretend. One day we may not have to keep the ruse, but until society is ready to accept our right to self-governance, we will just have to perpetuate the myth that the state exists.

View Source

Dorial Green-Beckham Makes White Men in Missouri Excited

Jesse Herman — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:46:38 +0000

Signing day has come in gone in the college football world, which means the majority of the top high school talent has pledged their allegiance and signature to a school of choice. College football signing day is unique because many prospects don’t officially decide who they are playing for until that day, leaving fans in a tizzy, victim of the media hype machine. 2012 was no exception and this year Dorial Green-Beckham is rated the top recruit in the nation.

Every year schools and fans take the obsession too far but in the “DGB” recruitment, it became a bit creepy. When DGB took his official visit to Missouri fans greeted him hysterically, holding signs and chanting his name. This behavior continued when he checked out a basketball game to a lesser degree. Head Coach Gary Pinkell even greeted him at his High School in a helicopter.

All of this for a local kid who is 18 years old.

It’s ok to follow recruiting. It’s fun and unique and when restraint is shown it can be good fun. But you can’t help but cringe when actually confronted with the reality of what’s going on: Grown men, mostly white, obsessing over kids, mostly black. Sure race should not factor into it but age definitely should. It can be assumed that many of the people holding these signs are asleep behind the wheel of their own lives. It’s one thing to follow recruiting, even though the whole thing can get buggy at times. But to prepare signs and chant a kids name it is really odd.

DGB may end up being god’s gift to football. He may end up being a great person. But without a doubt, we are sending them in the wrong direction before he has had a chance to really prove his worth. We are enabling grown men to chase around kids, follow them in locker rooms and conduct interviews. We are allowing them to call obsessively to find out the ‘latest information’ on what they are thinking. It’s not that we are allowing it, it’s that we are demanding it and in light of the Jerry Sandusky scandal it’s all starting to seem perverted.