The Aphorist Press

Tempora, Prism's cousin across the pond.

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:45:00 +0000

Tempora is Brightens version of Prism, and it may be even worse then it's cousin across the pond.

Rather than waste it's time going directly to sites like Facebook, Yahoo, and Google for their data, Tempora has found an easier way. It intercepts it on the world’s network of fiber-optic cables. According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the British spy agency GCHQ has tapped 200 of the world’s fibre optic cables, and is surveilling more than 600 million “telephone events” a day. It can also intercept e-mails, check Internet users’ access of sites, and can keep tabs on what people are posting on Facebook, according to documents revealed by Snowden to the Guardian.

It has also been revealed that the Tempora program is sharing it's data with 850,000 NSA employees and private contractors. Do you feel comfortable with that many people having access to your personal data?

Snowden’s documents indicate that GCHQ has built up It's capability over a five year time-span by signing secret agreements with data transmission companies to attach probes to the trans-Atlantic cables where they meet British soil.

A good chunk of what GCHQ is intercepting would be pretty difficult to understand, or use. Internet traffic can be encrypted, and the massive amount of data would be nearly impossible to decrypt in a useful time frame. However, much of the data would be in-the-clear, like metadata about phone calls, and more often then not, web browsing data about what sites you’ve visited. Your Facebook activity can also be sent unencrypted over ordinary HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol), although this can be fixed with a visit to Facebook’s security settings. You can enable secure browsing to encrypt your Facebook sessions, which would make them hard, but not imposable to understand.

When asked how many people Tempora has targeted, the agency’s lawyers replied that it would be impossible to say because “this would be an infinite list which we couldn’t manage.” Not very promising.

How many other Countries also have equivalents to Prism and Tempora?

Is there any way to protect our privicy?

[Who's watching you?]

Obama changes his mind about "privacy", and "security" amidst NSA scandal.

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:19:00 +0000

It seems that Obama has changed his mind about "privacy", and "security" amidst the recent NSA scandals.

Back in 2007 Barack Obama had some very harsh words for president Bush (Who was having his own NSA scandal at the time) stating the following:

"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand… That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists… We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Today Obama changed his tune, as is clear in this more recent quote:

Barack Obama: "I think it’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society."

The CNN/ORC International survey, released Monday, finds that Obama's approval rating has fallen eight points to 45 percent, the lowest level in more than 18 months. There is no doubt that this drop in popularity has been triggered my the recent scandals surrounding the Obama administration. And with Edward Snowden, the man responsible for leaking the information that has brought the NSA scandal into the limelight now being called a hero by many Americans, it is unlikely that people will approve of the way he is being treated.

Speaker Of The House John Boehner has called Edward Snowden a "traitor", which does not sit well with those who are rallying in his defense.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated- "I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the Earth to bring him to justice."

U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell: "Given the scope of these programs, it’s understandable that many would be concerned about issues related to privacy. But what’s difficult to understand is the motivation of somebody who intentionally would seek to warn the nation’s enemies of lawful programs created to protect the American people. And I hope that he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

And is seems U.S. Representative Peter King thinks reporters don't have the right to cover stories on the NSA, stating: "There is an obligation both moral, but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security."

And that isn't the worst of it. Director Of National Intelligence James Clapper had a very dodgy, and suspicious answer when he was asked about why he lied about the NSA spying in front of Congress: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner"

What's worse, according to National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden: "The president has full faith in director Clapper and his leadership of the intelligence community" Something we should all be concerned about.

                                               [Obama on NSA scandal]

[ Art In The Midst Of REVOLUTION]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:08:00 +0000

It really amazes me that in the midst of civil unrest and revolution, you can find some of the most inspirational art- art that is so completely thought provoking and enlightening. These images are a window into the minds of the people. I really feel that this is the spirit of the humanity, the images that they, in the midst of chaos, hurriedly paint, and draw on walls, and streets. The images below are coming out of Turkey.

[Istanbul, Turkey: The Violence Continues]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:08:00 +0000

The violence taking place in Istanbul has not yet come to an end. And while the cause our friends in Istanbul are fighting for is a just one, it is painful non the less to see the blood that has been spelt in it's name. Unfortunately, revolution and violence seem to almost always accompany each other. It is a shame that the Government would not yield to the demands of the people of Turkey, and spare them this violence. In any true Democracy, that many voices would not go unheard. Our hearts go out to you, people of Turkey- I hope you accomplish all they have set out to do. Violence is never a good thing, no matter who it is that is being hurt, but it is especially painful to see these brave citizens being treated this way by their Government, that entity that swore to protects them.

Who Is Anonymous?

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:55:00 +0000

Anonymous has always been shrouded in a certain stigma. And as far as public opinion goes, they've always been the "bad boys" of the activist world, often going to lengths many other activist groups won't. They have many times blatantly disobeyed the law in the name of what they believe. They have been called terrorists, and they have been called heroes.

Anonymous (used as a mass noun)
Put simply, Anonymous is a network of "hacktivists" (activist that often use hacking as a means to raise awareness, or show their dislike for a group or organization.) In 2012, Time called Anonymous one of the "100 most influential people" in the world. They are described as "an internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". It is important to note that, although Anonymous is well known for it's hacking activities, not all Anons are hackers, and that their presence is not solely felt on the internet (They often take part in protests where they can be seen- flesh and blood.)

Anonymous became known for a series of well-publicized hacks and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on government, and corporate websites.

Members of Anonymous (known as "Anons") can be distinguished in public by the wearing of Guy Fawkes masks, like the one popularized in the film "V for Vendetta". The wearing of masks began with 2008's Project Chanology—a series of protests, and hacks targeting the Church of Scientology. The masks served multiple purposes. Firstly, for the protection of Anonymous members. (The Church Of Scientology is well known for targeting, and harassing anyone who openly criticizes them.) Secondly, it serves as a visual representation of the philosophy of Anonymous- which is, in short, that members of Anonymous represent an idea, not a person- That they are a collective, not an individual. And while an individual may be arrested, killed, or forgotten, an idea cannot.

Brian Kelly writes that three of the group's key characteristics are
              "(1) an unrelenting moral stance on issues and rights, regardless of direct provocation;
               (2) a   physical presence that accompanies online hacking activity; and
               (3) a distinctive brand."

It seems to be difficult for some to really understand whether or not our intentions as a group are good.
Quinn Norton of Wired wrote of the group in 2011:

"I will confess up front that I love Anonymous, but not because I think they're the heroes. Like Alan Moore's character V who inspired Anonymous to adopt the Guy Fawkes mask as an icon and fashion item, you're never quite sure if Anonymous is the hero or antihero. The trickster is attracted to change and the need for change, and that's where Anonymous goes. But they are not your personal army – that's Rule 44 – yes, there are rules. And when they do something, it never goes quite as planned. The internet has no neat endings."

There is a lot of imagery associated with the group.

[An image commonly associated with Anonymous is the "man without a head" It represents leaderless organization and anonymity. Other imagery includes the Guy Fawkes masks, ]

Some people love them, others sincerely hate them with a burning passion. And still, many do not know who anonymous is. They see the mask, and assume that they must be up to no good. However, the truth is not that simple. And even the most law loving citizen can have a hard time accusing Anonymous of any wrong. Though they may not agree with the means, they recognize the fact that there is occasionally a situation that the law is incapable of correcting, for a number of reasons.

Many people fear Anonymous, and as a whole they do look rather intimidating. They don't fit the profile many people have about what an activist looks like. Contrary to popular belief, they are not there to do something horrible. And they do work towards the goal of bettering society. But they are also, generally, dressed in dark clothing, wearing masks, and are often hackers, who are not afraid to threaten groups they feel are in the wrong. They are also a group that has successfully hacked Government websites all over the world, and managed to rally large numbers quickly. One can understand the level of intimidation the public feels.

They are called terrorists, because they use the threat of hacking and retaliation against groups, companies, governments, and politicians. They are called bullies because they use intimidation to their advantage.
They are called cowards, for "hiding" behind a mask. They are called philosophers, for knowing that the true value of the mask is in the symbolism it holds. They have been called revolutionists, and it cannot be denied that their mask has been seen on many front-lines all over the world, where revolution is taking place. They are called insane, warped, and hypocritical. But they are also thought of in a more romanticized light, by those who support them. To their supporters they are modern day Robin hoods, vigilantes, defenders of freedom, and watchmen, who stand to defend the very public that often criticizes them.

Whatever you call them, it can not be denied that they have proven to be a powerful force, capable of rallying large numbers for a cause, and working together with great unity. And while many can condemn their activities, few can deny the fact that theirs is a just cause. They have managed to gather members all over the world, and it is nearly imposable to know how many Anonymous members there really are. But they can be seen in every country, in every city.

While they may seem off-putting at first glance, you need only speak to them directly to see that they are not as cold and intimidating as they first seem. And they have a certain sense of humor about their persona and image. They are made less intimidating when you consider the fact that it is your rights that they are fighting for. When it comes to Anonymous, you either agree that there are times when a cause is more important then the law, or you condemn them as criminals. At any rate, they are making a difference in a number of causes.

Remember that these are not just masks, they are men and women. They are your fellow man, citizens of your country. They are people like you, only they have seen enough of the lying and deceit that goes on in the Government's innermost circles. They are tired of half-true media, who only cover stories that are convenient, and agree with their own agendas.

I encourage those of you who are frightened of Anonymous, or uncertain of their group, to take the time to consider their cause, and hear their point of view. Do not hear them called terrorists on TV, and assume that you are being told the truth. The biggest mistake people make these days, is to believe whatever media tells them. There is a chance that, after researching them, you may not agree with what Anonymous believes, and that is alright. At least you could say that you didn't take peoples' word for it. But if you do agree, then there is a lot you can do to assist in their cause. And if you happen to meet, or see a member of Anonymous, I suggest that you talk to them, and ask them personally why they are part of Anonymous, and what it is they do. I have always found them to be very willing to talk to the public, and explain their group.

[Turkish Government Giving “final warning” To Protesters]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:47:00 +0000

As clashes between protesters and police continue in Istanbul, the Turkish Prime Minister has issued a “final warning” to protesters in Gezi Park.

"Our patience is at an end. I am making my warning for the last time," said Prime Minister Erdogan the day after he promised to end protests “in 24 hours”.

“We cannot allow troublemakers to hang around freely in this square. We will clean the square,'' he told local party leaders.

However, the Prime Minister's words served only to aggravate protesters, who were defiant, and met his deadline with extreme resistance. Overnight riots ended up with police firing tear gas and water cannons in an attempt to disperse some 2,500 protesters, as they tried to erect barricades on a road that led to government offices.

On Thursday morning police arrested 42 people in Istanbul who were peacefully marching around the park. Meanwhile, by the 14th day of bloody protests five people are confirmed dead, and there have been more than 5,000 injured.

The atmosphere is getting more and more hostile, as protesters express fears that a "witch hunt" will soon be underway. And with Prime Minister Erdogan not elaborating on the exact meaning of “final warning”, the people of Istanbul are left to wonder what lies in store for them during this time of extreme instability.

The actions taken by police over these last few weeks have led the Interior Ministry to order a probe into what the EU Parliament has called “the disproportionate and excessive use of force” by police. These claims from the EU Parliament seem to be confirmed by the violent images and videos coming out of Istanbul.

"Our inspectors in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and other cities have launched an investigation so no one should worry about that," Interior Minister Muammer Guler said Thursday.

One can only hope that a fair and balanced appraisal of the situation will lead to proper action being taken, but with a great gap appearing between the people of Istanbul and their leadership, it seems rather unlikely at the moment.

The members of the European Parliament have expressed their concern over the situation in Turkey. As members of the European Parliament are expected to vote on a resolution setting out their position, Prime Minister Erdogan slammed the EU Parliament, saying he will not “recognize the decision.”

“I won't recognize the decision that the European Union Parliament is going to take about us ... Who do you think you are by taking such a decision?”

[Surviving civil unrest ]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:36:00 +0000

Some would consider the active preparation for a revolution, economic collapse, or extreme disaster of any other kind unnecessary, and even paranoid. But revolutions, riots that last weeks, and extreme civil unrest have not only occurred, but have occurred recently. And once it starts, you may not be able to get your hands on necessary items. In instances of riots, or extreme civil unrest, stores in the effected areas will almost certainly be closed, as a precaution to keep goods from being looted or damaged, and to keep violence from spilling into businesses. In this event, you will want to have all indispensable items on hand, and ready for use. At the very least it is wise to have a months worth of non-perishable food, first aid kits, and supplies. As well as protective clothing. Below is a list of necessary items, as well as tips and advise.

Water: large amounts of bottled water, or a way to purify water from a natural source, i.e. lake, or river. water that is unsafe to drink can be purified in a number of ways, including purification tablets, distillation, or a filtered purification system. When shopping for bottled water, or for containers to hold water, be sure they are "Food grade" water storage containers. You may want to have multiple purification methods at your disposal, in case one or more fail. The recommended amount of water is one gallon per person, per day.

Non-perishable food reserve: Items such as canned foods, dry ingredients such as rice, noodles, beans, etc. It is a good idea to have foods that require little or no preparation. canned soups, vegetables, and fruits are ideal. try to keep your diet as diverse as possible. Look for foods with high nutritional value, and as many calories as possible, as you will need them. It is important to keep your body healthy in instances of disaster. It's not a bad idea to have a daily vitamin on hand, to supplement what your non-perishable diet may be lacking.

Candles, Matches, Lighters. There are candles, such as Sterno's 60 Hour Emergency Candle, that are specifically made to burn for long periods of time. You may find that normal household candles burn quickly. It is wise to keep a large supply of candles on hand, as they may, in some cases, be your sole source of light. It is also a good idea to keep wind-up flashlights on hand.

First aid kit: It is important that you not only posses a few, but also know haw to use them. Keep your first aid kit well stocked. You are going to want to keep a large amount of ibuprofen, as it is an effective pain reliever, and fever reducer. Antiseptic spray, which can be used for burns, cuts, and stings. rubbing alcohol, and hydrogen peroxide are also good to keep on hand. Anti-diarrhea medicine is also important, as you may ingest contaminated water or food. And diarrhea in a situation where supplies are limited may lead to severe dehydration. Keep a wide array of bandages, in a number of sizes. If you have a child, be sure to keep pain relievers and fever reducers that are appropriate for their age.

comfortable and protective clothing: In the event of a disaster, riots, or all-out marshal-law, you may need to pack up, and move out quickly. It is important to wear clothing that is appropriate for the activities you may find yourself forced to take part in. It is a good idea to wear comfortable pants. Skirts and dresses are not recommended. You will also need shoes that are good for running in. Sneakers, or comfortable military style boots are well suited. It is a good idea to have a jacket or sweater, in case of cold weather, especially at night. A bandana, or other type of mask may also prove to be helpful. While they may seem trivial at first, they have many useful applications, such as helping to filter out the dust and smoke in the air you're breathing, hiding your identity, and allowing you to blend into crowds more easily. Bandanas can also be used as a makeshift bandage, or can be tied around a wounded limb, in order to prevent excessive bleeding. A hiking backpack will also prove useful, as they are strong, can take a lot of abuse, and can be used to keep necessary supplies on you while traveling from one place to another.

Weapons: It may not be a bad idea to keep at least some sort of weapon on you, as you may find yourself dealing with a number of people who want what you have, and know the law is of no consequence any longer. Raids, rape, and even murder may be rampant in a country with no law. A hand gun and holster are a good start. It is easy to keep on you, and can be concealed. You are going to want a full clip in the gun, and another full clip within easy access for fast reloading. Additional ammo should be kept on hand. Knifes and small hand axes are also useful, because they are multi-purpose. They can be used for cutting rope, material, or wood. Which is useful in a number of situations.

Items for children: Depending on the age of the child, there are a number of items necessary for their safety, well-being, and comfort. For babies, diapers, bottles, and formula are necessary. Breast feeding your baby is a good way of ensuring that they have food whenever necessary, but keep in mind that this will necessitate higher caloric intake for the mother. It is also important to pack an item that is entertaining. A stuffed animal, a rattle, a toy, to give them something to play with and comfort them. Blankets, and a change of warm clothing are also important. Remember to never leave a child unattended, and don't trust anyone with the safety of your child, unless they are a relative, or a friend you've known and trusted for years. Avoid traveling through crowds with your child, as it is easy to lose sight of them, and it is likely that they will be trampled in the event of a riot, or sudden rush of people.

Moving through crowds: When moving through a large crowd, stay as far to the edge as possible. If you are stuck in the middle of a stampede, run forward at a slightly diagonal angle, moving further to the side, while staying with the flow of traffic, once you've reached the edge of the group, keep as close to any walls as possible.

Dangers of lawlessness for women:

Aside from looting, and robbery, there are a number of other forms of lawlessness that occur during a revolution. And women are a common target of these crimes. In a time when no one has to answer for their crimes, women must be on guard. Rape is a very common crime, and it is made more common by the absence of leadership. It is important that women dress to cover their bodies. Skirts, and dresses are a bad idea. Wear clothing that is difficult for your attacker to remove, but easy for you to run in, and jump fences with. Pants with a belt, a top, a sweater with a hood, and running shoes are ideal. While wearing these articles of clothing along with a bandana or mask, it would be relatively easy for most to hide their gender while traveling through crowds. Never travel alone if it can be avoided. It is a good idea to travel with a small group of people you trust. Don't trust strangers, or new friends. Whatever you do, don't encourage flirting or inappropriate behavior as a joke or a casual thing. While it may be safe in everyday life, it is dangerous in a time of mass unrest. In a lawless society, you may find yourself in danger from both sides, regardless of the side you're on. It is important to make yourself look confident, and unafraid. Don't think like a victim. Stand up strait, try not to look nervous, and tell yourself in your mind that you've got everything handled, and that you are capable of defending yourself. This shows in your behavior. Men are more likely to attack someone who looks as if they couldn't defend themselves.

Edward Snowden: An Uncertain Future

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:11:00 +0000

[Edward Snowden]

At just 29, Edward Snowden had a comfortable salary, a good position as technical assistant for the CIA, and as the current employee of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. But he is also the "whistleblower" responsible for bringing to light one of the most significant leaks in America's political history, and the NSA is not at all pleased.

despite the fact that he is shinning an unwanted light on the actions of the NSA, and possibly putting himself on the radar of a lot of unhappy and powerful men, he has opted out of anonymity, and chose to reveal his identity, stating the following:

"I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
In a note included in the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

While Snowden chose not to hide his identity, he has asked that media coverage focus on the Government, and not on him. "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing." But he claims that this is not because of fear, stating- "I know the media likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me."

"I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in." He added: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

It is not without great sacrifice that this information has come to us, Snowden had a comfortable life, a salary of $200,000, a girlfriend he shared a home with in Hawaii, and a loving family. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building." He said.

After copying all the documents he planned to disclose, he told his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year. He then went home, packed his bags, and told his girlfriend he had to leave for a few weeks, something he said was not all that unusual for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world. On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He said he chose Hong Kong because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government. He has been staying in a hotel, and says he has left his room only a few times.

He has reason to fear. Having worked for the NSA for nearly a decade, he is well aware of just how powerful it is. And he knows the U.S. Government has no shortage of resources and technology that can assist in his capture. At this point his future is very uncertain.

"Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets," he said.

"We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

He thinks the government will launch an investigation and "say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become".

"The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night," he said, his eyes welling up with tears.

[Monsanto losing Ground]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:38:00 +0000

To all those who spoke up against Monsanto, and the abominations they call food, to all those who spread the word, attended the protests, made signs, donated to anti-GMO groups, and who bought non-GMO products- We are now seeing the fruits of our labors. Before us is laid the proof of the power of the people. You may not have realized it, but Monsanto was frightened by the unity, and massiveness of this growing movement. And they were frightened on May 25th, when the people rose up to march against them. We are proving that the days of blind and dumb acceptance are behind us. We must keep our momentum. Monsanto is being pushed out of Europe, and they are going to do their best to hold on to their last, and strongest foothold, America. If Monsanto loses in the U.S., they will lose everywhere. It is time for America to show it's resolve.

Monsanto is losing ground fast, and we are now getting backing be influential people. Connecticut governor Dannel P. Malloy is committed to sign a piece of legislation that was overwhelmingly approved, requiring food manufacturers to identify and label genetically modified ingredients. Ben & Jerry's Icecream has released a statment saying they are going non-GMO. Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine wrote an article criticizing GMOs. The April 2 column, "Why Do G.M.O.'s Need Protection?", started out with "Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it." That's right, even people once pushing for GM foods are now raising doubts.

Bittman continued: "...genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering - in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature - has been disappointing."

"In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable 'successes,' along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they're resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin - originally a bacterial toxin - faster than new crop variations can be generated."

"The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture - something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed - lies in glyphosate's inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it."

Not too long ago, no one with a good career in any sort of media would dare question Monsanto's divine right to rule food, but times are changing, and Monsanto is losing it's appeal.

Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine

He takes a definite and practical stand against the effectiveness of GMOs. Giving insightful information that at no point seems biased or impractical.

This is the kind of person we need to convince those in it for the money that GM crops are a time bomb.

Thank you, Mark Bittman.

[Corporate Giants: Bleeding The People Dry]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Many people see corporations as the life-blood of a nation. The ultimate source of wealth and prosperity. The giver of jobs and opportunities. But it is these corporations that are bleeding our country dry. They are feeding off the people, and cornering markets left, and right. They are seeking cheaper work, and more power. Perpetuating itself, and gaining wealth are the sole agendas of every big corporation. And they put those agendas over the well-being of their consumers, time, and time again. These truths can be seen in a very telling interview with Nestlé’s Chief Executive Officer, Paul Bulcke. He has called for the privatization of water, and stated that it is not a basic human right. He has also explained that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, and that the view points of the Organic movement are "Extreme", and "hypocritical" all in one interview. This is a very interesting look into the minds of the elitists. Just replace the word "nature" with "God" in this interview, and you understand what he's really saying.

And don't assume that these beliefs are held by just a few of these CEOs. I'm sure you would see these companies in a very negative light if you knew what they thought and said about consumers like you, behind closed doors. They will do anything to keep consumers consuming, even stooping so low as to purposely mislead consumers about the safety of their products, and letting parents feed toxic foods to their children.

And about the jobs these companies provide...they do create jobs, but not necessarily in the places you'd expect, and not in the condition you would like.




It is people like the ones pictured above that supply us with our everyday items. They make your clothes, and electronics, as well as everything else you can imagine. It is their sweat that makes our lifestyle possible, but at what cost? It is not just a few big companies, it is ALL of them. Walmart, Dell, Apple, and numerous others. I'm not asking that you go without the things you like, I'm simply asking that you make small compromises here, and there to support local business, and promote ethical treatment of workers. As long as you keep on buying, they'll keep on supplying. When you go out for coffee, why not stop at that little place down the street, instead of Starbucks? When you go out for dinner, why not eat at a mom-and-pop kind of place, that hires local workers, at reasonable pay. Why not support small, local companies that really add to your community, instead of feeding these inhumane and uncaring giants? These big companies take more than they give. We have little to gain from these corporations, and their success has meant that they can do as they please, and buy their way out of scandal. You work hard for the money you earn, why not give it to someone who works as hard as you do, and who deserves your patronage?

[Protesters And Police Clash In Istanbul, Turkey]

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:33:00 +0000

[Protesters in Istanbul, Turkey]

What started out as a small, and peaceful sit-in protest against the demolition of the Gezi park in Istanbul has erupted into what some people are calling "anti-Government riots", and an "anarchist movement" in several cities in Turkey. The trouble started when police began using teargas and high pressure water canons to break up protests and disperse protesters. The action taken by police has been considered violent and unnecessary by many people around the world. After use of these weapons against protesters, the situation quickly escalated into an all out riot, and many people began pouring out of buildings and offices to show support to the protesters, and disapproval of the action taken by police.

What had begun as a demonstration by hundreds, became a riot of thousands. The images and videos coming out of Turkey are often disturbing in nature, and show what most in America would call "police brutality". The point of the protest has changed focus, and is no longer about the park, so much as it is about current leadership in Turkey. The protesters are calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. While the Prime Minister has admitted that the police made "mistakes" while dealing with the protesters, he has called for an end of the Istanbul protests. He has also referred to the protesters as "extremists", a term that many believe better suits him and his regime.

Prime Minister Erdogan has stated that the construction plans at the park will continue as planned, despite mass disapproval. This may be more about showing power and authority over his people, than the demolition of the park.

It has been stated by the Interior Ministry that a total of 939 people have been arrested. There are also reports that state that there have been well over a hundred injuries, and at least a few deaths. Though these numbers are difficult to confirm, due to the fact that the situation is still developing.

In an attempt to reduce tension, police and riot vehicles were withdrawn from Istanbul's Taksim Square, near the Gezi Park on Saturday afternoon, thousands of people packed the square to demonstrate.

Oral Goktas, a protester, told Reuters the protest had become one "against the government, against Erdogan taking decisions like a king".

Koray Caliskan, also a protester, told the BBC that people felt "victorious".
"This is the first time in Turkey's political history that a million people moved into Taksim Square to claim their public park,".

Despite this small victory, the unrest has not diminished, and reporters have stated that there seems to be a growing agitation amongst the predominantly young protesters, which is elevated substantially as night falls over Istanbul and the rest of Turkey. Violent clashes with police continue.

Experts Warn Consumers Processed Meat Is Unsafe For Human Consumption

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 05:20:00 +0000

Informed consumers have known for a while now that the Sodium nitrates found in processed meats are unhealthy, and unfit for human consumption, but these beliefs have been reaffirmed by the World Cancer Research Fund.

Sodium nitrate is added to processed meats by manufacturers for the purpose of preventing botulism by inhibiting the growth of clostridium botulinum, the bacteria that causes it. It also helps to keep the meat from spoiling as quickly. You might not recognize your favorite brand of hot dogs, or lunch meat without the addition of Sodium nitrate, as it effects the color and flavor of the finished product.

While sodium nitrate has long been considered safe by the FDA, natural health experts, as well as a number of physicians and scientist have warned of their possible side effects.

After a five-year project spanning 7,000 studies, cancer researchers published their conclusion in The World Cancer Research Fund’s report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective (2007). They declared that all people should immediately stop buying and eating processed meat products and that processed meats are too dangerous for human consumption.
The report can be downloaded for free at dietandcancerreport.org.

The harmful additives in processed meats have been linked to the following health risks:

Colorectal cancer
Prostate cancer
Leukemia
Breast cancer
Brain tumors
Diabetes
Heart disease
Pancreatic cancer

Many people might find themselves a little unsure of the differences between processed meat and fresh meat, so we will briefly go over the basic characteristics of both.

Fresh meat: Has only one ingredient-the meat itself. It must be refrigerated, and has a relatively short shelf-life. It is usually packaged in simple, minimal wrappers.

Processed meat: Has a long shelf-life, and contains many ingredients. And almost always contains sodium nitrate.

Processed meats include:

Hot Dogs
Sandwich Meat
Ham
Meat in canned soup
Pepperoni
Bologna
Breakfast sausage
Meat in kids’ lunch products
Beef jerky
Deli meat
Meat in frozen pizza
Sausage
Bacon

Remember that no company will tell you their product is dangerous if they can avoid it. The best way to avoid the health risks associated with processed meats is to boycott them all together, or to find a local source of these products that does not add harmful ingredients.

March Against Monsanto, May 25th, 2013

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 26 May 2013 02:05:00 +0000

March Against Monsanto, Tucson AZ, was, I think, a huge success. Many people showed up to support our cause, and it was nice to see that everything was carried out safely, and without complication. I was pleased to see many people, with diverse backgrounds, ideas, and opinions come together to share information and ideas. I must say, it was a pleasant change of pace, to be able to talk to a large number of people that shared many of my views, and understood what I was talking about. It's truly satisfying to see a community come together with a common denomination, and with the same intentions. I especially enjoyed the fact that there were many young participants, educating children is a good way to bring up a generation that won't allow abominations like Monsanto to exist. Below are some photos I took at the event. I'd like to thank everyone who showed up, and marched with us.

The Blind And Unquestioning Public

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:39:00 +0000

We are living in a time of unparalleled ignorance. We don't comprehend in entirety the level of brainwashing that has taken place in this country. We don't even realize how influenced by media we are. Think about this, my fellow Americans:

We pick up an item in the store and turn it over to see the nutrition facts. We don't recognize half the ingredients on the label, but buy the product because it only has a hundred calories. You don't wonder for a minute what all those unfamiliar ingredients on that label are, because we believe that the FDA, and our Government has taken care of that for us.

We hear that there is sodium fluoride in our water, and instead of questioning why this is, and what effects it might have on us, we assume that our Government wouldn't put it in our water unless it was wonderfully beneficial, and never give it a second thought.

We hear something on the news, and we take it as absolute fact. Never questioning what they have told us. Never checking their facts to see if they hold-up. Never wondering if they might have reason to be biased. And not believing anything we hear until our favorite news network confirms it for us.

We are told what to eat, what to wear, what to think, what we should feel, and this doesn't bother you.
Try this, next time you see a label with words you don't recognize, look them up. See what they are, where they come from, and what effect it has on your body. Next time you go to the grocery store and see bottled water with added fluoride don't assume it's good, find out if it is. When your watching the news, check their sources, check their facts, and find out who's investing money into their business. The main issue is that people forget that the news networks are businesses, and a business's main goal is to stay open and make money. People forget that politicians only have a job if they get reelected, and they care more about reelection and a pay check then the important issues they talk about. Politicians are in business for themselves, not for you.

When you take it upon yourself to find out the truth of these matters, you will find things that don't please you. See if you don't feel betrayed, and distrusting. See if you aren't quick to doubt. See if you don't lean toward skepticism when you hear corporations, Governments, and media sources tell you they know what's good for you. Don't assume the world is out for your best interests.

Do you want to know what kind of citizens every Government in this world wants?

They want citizens who:

Never question what they eat.
Never question what they drink.
Never question what they hear.
Never question what they see.
Never question what they do.
Never question what they tell you.
Never question the status quo.

Think of that next time someone calls you a model citizen.

Water Collection Illegal In Many States: Our Power Hungry Government

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 19 May 2013 00:53:00 +0000

It is now illegal to collect water for personal use in many states, here in our happily Government dependent Country. How long will it take for you to open your eyes, America? When will you realize that you are quickly becoming the most helpless, defenseless, gullible and naive nation in this wide-world. We wake-up each morning in a happy haze of stupidity, and bumble through our artificial life of careless consumption, unaffected, and showing a simplicity of mind, once only observed in the brains of certain apes.

Our Government gives us a healthy daily dose of propaganda, and we all too willingly swallow it, day after happy day. Ask yourself this, America. Why is our Government continually taking steps to increase our dependency on them. They make themselves seem indispensable to us, so we will except every drastic move they make, and hand over all power to them. Realize this, our Government is not a divine entity, who's primary goal is to make our lives easy, painless, and safe. They are a group of men. And you should know already that the hearts of men are easily corrupted. We should not think of them as being above other men in their deeds and actions.

What harm is there in collecting rain water? The only negative that they could see in this is that we will not depend on them for an important commodity, without which life is not possible. With Obama care they are making us dependent on them for healthcare, making the price for other healthcare providers shoot up, and putting many of those service providers out of business, while fining those who do not want to be covered by Obama-care, punishing them for not being a burden on tax payers. With gun control they are attempting to hinder our ability to defend ourselves, and maintain our freedom and rights, making us less of a threat to our Government.

They are making it impossible to not need them, and you accept this because it is easier then trying to make it on your own. Better to work in the blistering heat of the day, sweating like slaves in fields WE have planted, drawing from a well on OUR land to quench the thirst of ourselves and our animals, and spend hours canning, baking, and building for ourselves, and know that we are not dependent on men that take our freedom to "protect" us and control us to make sure we don't hurt ourselves.

How ironic that we call ourselves the "land of the free", when we relentlessly enslave ourselves with our luxurious American lifestyle, and tremble at the thought of life without our precious, and caring Government. Don't be deceived. They call themselves public servants, but they consider themselves rulers. And if they claim the title of ruler, then their is only one part for you to play, and that is the part of the ruled, the subjects, the servants, the commoners.

If you don't find it disgusting that you must ask for permission from your Government before you use "their" rainwater, then you have effectively been brainwashed. With water collection now illegal in many states the Government must issue you a water right before you can collect the natural resource, even though you are not harming the environment or any person by doing so. It is up to the Government to decide whether or not they want to issue you that right. They claim to care about the environment and your rights, and then they turn around and hinder your ability to protect both.

Prior to the passage of these laws that bar the free use of rainwater, Douglas County, Colorado did a study to determine what kind of effect rain water collection had on the environment and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that allowing people to collect water had a very positive effect on the environment, conserved water resources, and reduced demand from water facilities. What reason is there to ban free use of rain water, then? One would have to assume that these were not the results they wanted.

How can they claim the right to rain water, which falls from the sky, onto your land? If rain belongs to them, then can you charge them for any damage done by it? If your neighborhood floods, then can you charge the Government the cost of repairs? No, they only mean to take power over it, and not responsibility for it. If a storm blows through, and your basement floods, Standard homeowner's insurance won't cover the damage. Why? Because rain and the flooding that occasionally comes of it is considered an act of God. How can they claim control over an act of God? This is just another way to keep us from attaining self-sufficiency. They might as well claim the air we breathe and the beating in our hearts, as they have no more right to one than the other.

What can i do about this, you might wonder. Well, you can stop your blind consumerism. You can stop excepting everything you are told by your Government as fact. You can stop swallowing that propaganda pill. You can hold your Government officials accountable for their actions, as they hold you accountable for yours. You can stand up for your rights, and demand your freedom. Or you can tear that star spangled banner from your flag pole, burn your constitution, and call this the land of the enslaved.

Drones Over America: Unblinking Eyes

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:20:00 +0000

Imagine walking outside, conscious of the fact that you're being watched- that somebody is keeping tabs on your whereabouts. They can see through walls, roofs, they can find you on the darkest of nights by your heat signal. You aren't doing anything wrong, but the awareness of these constant, and unblinking eyes makes you uneasy.

What are we reading about here? A science fiction story? The thoughts of a paranoid schizophrenic? No, you are reading about someone who knows that drones are flying overhead.

By 2015 there are going to be thousands of drones over America. These drones can be equipped with: cameras that can watch someone for days at a time, face recognition technology (enabling them to pick you, specifically out of a crowd of hundreds.), Heat sensors (making it easy to find you at night.), and soon, with cameras that can see through walls.

With the passing of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Re-authorization Act, receiving a license to fly a drone in American Airspace will be much easier than it used to be. The Senate passed the bill by a 75-20 margin. It is thought that by 2015 something like 30,000 drones will be flying over America. That's about 600 over each state. Needless to say, civil liberties groups are not at all pleased with the situation.

The American Civil Liberties Union stated, "Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected."

Questions are being raised over whether or not drone "surveillance", is constitutional. If searching a home without a warrant is unconstitutional, then why isn't constant observation without the consent of the observed? It seems a lot like stalking American citizens.

Harley Geiger, a policy attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., told Discovery News, “Right now, under current U.S. laws there are very few restrictions on our ability to take pictures or videos of individuals outside,”

“Some of the privacy issues that we see with drones are very different than the sort of surveillance that can be conducted with a helicopter. Drones can quietly watch an entire town without refueling. It can conduct a pervasive and secret surveillance that helicopters cannot match,” Geiger stated.

If you walk onto someones property, then you are clearly trespassing, and can be prosecuted for it. But if you fly a drone (or UAV) over someone's property, are you working within the confines of the law? It's hard to tell what is and isn't legal when it comes to drones. The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports a complaint it received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood. She wrote:

"This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom."

It is difficult for experts to determine whether or not this man's actions are illegal. While most people agree that this situation is "odd" and "creepy", it isn't necessarily a crime. It all comes down to fine details, like what kind of drone was being used, and whether or not photos were taken of the homes interior or inhabitants. But what people seem to be saying is that it would be very difficult to take legal action against this man.

Can you imagine how unsafe and violated you would feel if you found out that someone was doing this to you, without your knowledge? It would seem a tall brick wall won't be enough to ensure privacy from your neighbors anymore. But with drones becoming commercially available to civilians, what can you do ensure privacy? board-up your windows? That may not be enough. It seems the general public will have little recourse when these eyes-in-the-sky decide to stalk us.

There are countless ways that drones can be used to end privacy and stalk citizens, and few laws to protect us. What can we do to protect ourselves, in case these drones are implemented in unconstitutional ways?

At this point, nothing. Let us hope that at the very least these pesky and pervasive devices are confined by the law, so as to be implemented in only the most appropriate of situations. It's hard to understand what a normal person might want with a devise who's primary use has been spying and assassinations overseas. But apparently our Government has found many ways for these drones to make themselves useful on American soil. The impact of this remains to be seen.

By 2015 Drones will be the new American"normal"

Benghazi: Government Failure

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 12 May 2013 07:43:00 +0000

There is no question that there was a failure to act promptly, and appropriately during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. What most people are questioning is who it was that failed to act, provide aid, gather accurate information, and send men as a precaution in case the attack lasted for more than two or three hours (It could have lasted days.) The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. Early the next morning a second attack took place, this attack was against a CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured.

After the attack, investigators identified over a dozen violent incidents in Benghazi during the last six months. October 2, 2012, three weeks after the attacks, Jason Chaffets (R-UT, chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations) and Darrell Issa (R-CA, chairman of the Committee) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which listed a number of these events—including car jackings, assassination attempts, kidnappings, and gun battles. "Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi." The letter stated.

Initially reports were spread that the attack had broken out during a protest over an independent, short film uploaded to YouTube, named "The Innocents Of Muslims", which bad-mouthed the Muslim faith. The violence was thought to have broken out suddenly, and to have been the act of only a few people in retaliation over the film, while the protest was meant to remain peaceful. However, these claims were later determine to be false. No protest ever took place. One must wonder how these rumors started spreading to begin with. Who was it who had claimed that the video was the cause of this violence? Even Government officials claimed this largely unknown film to be the cause of the attack. One would suppose that debunking this claim would be as simple as interviewing a witness, after all, there were surviving witnesses who could definitely determine if there had been a protest outside the building before violence broke out. If gathering this information is that simple, then why did it take so long for anyone to tell us these rumors were false? Perhaps it was easier to put these matters off until after Obama's re-election.

But who is to blame for the poor response to Benghazi? My first guess would be the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose job it is to advise the President on foreign affairs and who is in charge of correspondence, commission, or instructions to consuls abroad, and to conduct negotiations with foreign representatives. But Obama also repeated the "YouTube Film" myth, again and again. Perhaps Obama didn't want to "rock the boat" before re-election. Hillary was about to retire from her position, it seems correct to assume they were hoping to put things off until after these deadlines.

If the attack had lasted longer the death tole could have been much higher. Help was never sent, though we could have had men on the ground in about three hours. They should have been sent as a precaution, but they weren't. And it would seem that the public was intentionally misled about the cause of the attack, which was done by terrorists, not protesters. I'm also wondering why men weren't sent right after the initial night attack at the compound that was meant to protect the consulate building. Why didn't we respond immediately to the first attack by sending men, who may have been there in time to make a difference? And let's remember, this was not just any day. It was 9/11, a day when all U.S. embassies in Muslim countries should be well guarded and take more precautions. We should have prepared for this, especially in a place that was already experiencing a number of violent acts.

Some people are worried that the Benghazi scandal could effect Hillary Clinton's chance of election if she chooses to run for the presidency in 2016.

Poisoning the masses: Mansonto test results

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 05 May 2013 02:40:00 +0000

Some GMO foods have been proven in laboratory tests (on rats and mammals including monkeys) to cause: NEW allergies, cancer, sterility (consumers losing their ability to become pregnant and have children), miscarriages, seizures, and even death!

French scientists have found that Monsanto's NK603 GMO corn accelerates tumors.
In a two-year study, a team of French researchers found that rats who were fed Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group which was not fed GM corn. They also decovered that rats fed a GM diet developed tumors that appeared earlier, behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group. In accordance with scientific method, this test can be replicated in order to prove the results. After the results were made public Monsanto started a public relations campaign to down play the results and reassure consumers. Nothing says healthy and delicious like this image below. Yum.

The French government has asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency.

The French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement:
"Based on the conclusion…, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union,"

These aren't the only troubling test results about GM food. Let's examine another.

Egyptian scientists experiment:
After Egypt agreed to import Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, MON 810, (tens of thousands of tons of it, to give you an idea of the amount.), An Egyptian scientist named Hussein Kaoud decided to fund an experiment to test it's effects on rats. Kaoud, (of Cairo University’s Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene), fed nine groups of rats and mice different GM foods. GM foods such as potatoes, corn, grapes and tomatoes. These GM foods made up about 10% of the rats diets. The remaining 90% of their diet was conventional, none GM food.

The symptoms started apearing within the first four weeks of the test.

Kaoud stated, “I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys, change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues, kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine,” Kaoud said. “The brain functions were touched as well, and the rats’ learning and memory abilities were seriously altered,”

He also noted that the death rate of baby rats, whose mothers were fed the diet rose by 35%.

If these statistics are applicable to humans, then these are very scary results.

British GM potato test:

1995, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a highly respected British scientist embarked on the first Government funded research project on GM food.
The rats given GM potatoes (raw and cooked) after 10 days showed significant damages - impairment of the immune system, shrinkage of brain, liver and testicles, as well as per-cancerous cell growth in the intestines and stomach.

GMO corn and obesity: Results from 10-year study in Norway
Animals fed a GM diet gained weight faster and retained weight longer when compared to animals fed a non-GM diet.

“Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals’ major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.”

“They also suffered immune system alterations. The impaired ability to digest proteins may be of particular concern as this can have far-reaching implications for your health. If your body cannot digest proteins, your body will be less able to produce amino acids, which are necessary building blocks for proper cell growth and function. …”

Why have these products been approved by the FDA if tests are producing these results?

Preventative Detention

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sat, 04 May 2013 18:52:00 +0000

With the passing of the bill that will allow Indefinite Preventative Detention a few questions have been raised by some concerned citizens about whom the bill gives authorization to detain. Questions have also been raised about how long one might be detained without being charged with a crime. So we will take a moment to answer some of these looming inquiries, although I cannot guarantee that the answers will erase your suspension of the bill, or set your mind at ease. On the contrary, it is often the informed mind that has the most cause for concern, as the uninformed breeze through their lives in a sort of happy, hazy bliss, attainable only by the ignorant. Below we attempt to answer the most popular questions about the bill:

How Long Can Someone Legally Be Detained Without A Charge Against Them?

As the name states, an individual may be detained indefinitely. Presumably until the threat of there possible future crimes have passed. Which may be two days, or a hundred years. In other words, they keep you as long as they please.

Who May Be Legally Detained, According To The Bill?

The bill is rather vague about who may or may not be detained. It does not state anywhere in it's language that only terrorist may be detained, and it does not specify whether those being detained will be only foreign or if they will include U.S citizens, which probably means that they intend for the bill to apply to both. It is also important to note that indefinite imprisonment is not based on proven crimes or past violations of the law, but also authorizes the imprisonment of individuals whom the government deems a "threat" or whom they consider generally "dangerous".

In short, people who may be detained include everyone from terrorist who cannot be convicted in a legal court, to people the Government determines are likely to commit a crime in the future. Now the question must be raised, what exactly makes someone dangerous? What makes them likely to commit a crime?

Do they need any proof that you planned or are planning to commit a crime?

In short, no. If they had proof that you committed a crime then they would charge you with that crime and try you in court. If they had proof you are planning to commit a crime, then they could charge you with conspiracy to commit, and would try you in a court of law. The point of the bill seems to be that they can't charge you with anything, but they would like to, so they imprison you like they would if they had proof.

Do other countries have preventative detention?

Yes, there are other countries that have preventative detention. And that is one of the facts that Obama is trying to use as a way of showing that it isn't a radical idea. Other counties do it, so it isn't radical? There are countries that will stone you for being a victim of rape. There are other countries that will imprison or kill you for your words and beliefs. The fact that other countries do something does not mean that it isn't radical. And I would like to point out that some of the countries that Obama is pointing to- the ones that aren't all that radical, do not have "indefinite" detention.

In the times of IRA bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government to preventively detain terrorist suspects for a maximum of 14 days. After a rash of subway bombings the time which someone can be detained for was ultimately increased to 28 days. I think we all agree that there is a big difference between saying "I think you may be a terrorist, so we are going to detain you for 28 days." and "We think you may possibly commit a crime in the future, so I'm going to detain you for as long as I want."

This law has drawn a lot of criticism from human rights advocates, and it's hardly difficult to see why.

How do you feel about this? Do you agree that people can and should be held for an indefinite period of time without a trial?

TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:19:00 +0000

The TPP, or (Trans Pacific Partnership) is being negotiated in secrecy. While it all seems reasonably good from the surface, it has the potential to compromise the ability of the people to communicate freely on a global scale. Language leaked from the agreement’s intellectual property chapter has been rather worrisome, and the public has no idea what is in the latest official draft, or what the U.S. Trade Representative is asking for in this agreement. There has been absolutely no transparency at all during this process, which is being hastened to a quick finish. Why the secrecy? Why the hurry? Just what is in this mystery bill?

What’s worse is that the people pushing the bill, the people who actually have access to TPP’s content are the very same industry executives that tried to pass harmful laws like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. This is extremely worrisome. How can we trust this TPP bill, when questionable people like these, who have attempted to infringe on free internet speech before are now trying to pass a new bill, which they are going to great lengths to keep in the dark. Not even the Congressional Committee in charge of such treaties have been permitted to see the bill. This should tell us something. It can be assumed that it has, at least somewhere in it's language content similar to other bills, such as SOPA, and CISPA. We must demand transparency, and if transparency is not granted, we must assume the worst of the bill and take action to inhibit it's passing.

For more information on internet censorship see "Censoring The Internet "

Country	Status	Date
Brunei	Original Signatory	June 2005
Chile	Original Signatory	June 2005
New Zealand	Original Signatory	June 2005
Singapore	Original Signatory	June 2005
United States	Negotiating	February 2008
Australia	Negotiating	November 2008
Peru	Negotiating	November 2008
Vietnam	Negotiating	November 2008
Malaysia	Negotiating	October 2010
Mexico	Negotiating	October 2012
Canada^[35]	Negotiating	October 2012
Japan	Negotiating	March 2013

Hunter Moore: Endangering thousands.

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:41:00 +0000

Hunter Moore is a man that must be stopped before he costs innocent people their lives. He created a website called "ISANYONEUP?", which is a revenge porn site, created specifically for the purpose of exploiting and embarrassing people. Anyone could post photos of other people nude, without their permission. But that isn't all. The photos would be posted along with links to their social media sites. No one is off-limits, while Hunter Moore claims to screen the images for child pornography before posting, it is beyond dispute that pictures of miners have also been submitted and posted multiple times throughout the time the site was available.

The site includes categories, such as "gnargoyles," (reserved for people Moore deems particularly unattractive.) And "Band whores". which includes a list of all members of a band that someone allegedly slept with. Other classifications include: "would" and "would not". When Moore comes across a Facebook profile he likes, a "bounty" goes out for nude photos of that person. Another feature is "Daily Hate," (outraged correspondence from people who have had their pictures posted without their consent.)

After pressure and threats, Hunter Moore took down "ISANYONEUP". He sold the site to Internet entrepreneur James McGibney, who turned the domain into Bullyville, an anti-bullying forum. It was supposed by some that Hunter had turned over a new leaf. WRONG. Hunter Moore made this clear when he stated the following, "I don’t give a fuck about that (helping victims of bullying). It was all money.” Yes, to Hunter, it is all about money.

Now he is starting a new site, which is, in many ways similar to the original, but with one exception. He claims he will also upload, along with the pictures, physical addresses and maps to their homes.

This means that on top of exploiting people, and enabling cyber-bullying, he is also giving every sick freak, across the U.S. all the information necessary to stalk, rape, and even murder these victims. “All these people that thought they were safe: nah, it’s all gonna be back,” he said. “We’re gonna introduce the mapping stuff so you can stalk people.” Moore stated. He later claimed that only people who have "wronged" him will have their addresses and maps posted, but in the past, people who have "wronged" him include people who openly speak out against the site, people who request to have their photos (which were uploaded without consent) removed, and people who have angered him in anyway. So, in essence, many, many people will have their addresses posted, even if he keeps to his word, (which he may naught) to only post the supposed "wrong" doers.

Details are scarce on Moore's new venture, but he claims that it will be the "Scariest On The Internet".

Law enforcement has their hands tied, due to a loop-hole in section 230 of the United States online decency act, which was created to protect websites from being held accountable for content posted by a third-party. Because of this loop-hole, Hunter Moore cannot be prosecuted.

Hunter Moore

Born	March 9, 1986 Sacramento, California, U.S.
Nationality	American
Occupation	Entrepreneurial sick-O

He is willingly, and purposefully enabling stalkers, rapists, and murderers to pick and choose their prey in the comfort of their own homes, more easily than ever before. Think of it as amazon.com, except, instead of shopping for items, you're shopping around for potential victims. But why would he do this? Because it's paying off. He claims to have cleared up to $13,000 a month from the site, and his popularity is growing everyday.

Censoring The Internet

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:58:00 +0000

A sure fire way of angering every human rights organization and free speech activist is to mention the word "Censor". In a country that promises freedom of speech, you would suppose that the issue of censorship wouldn't even arise. But, like all other rights, the freedom of speech is under constant attack by government and corporations who would seek to silence the voices of the people. Every right must be actively defended or it will be taken away, the proof of this can be seen in many countries around the world. During the Arab Spring, foreign dictators attempted to prevent protest by censoring social media sites. "Come now", You must be thinking, "Our government wouldn't do that!" Really? How can you be so sure? Our government has done things you never thought they would before. This is the land of the free, not because our government is nice enough to give us freedom, but because we demand our freedom, and will have it at any cost. The second you loosen your grip on the government, your rights and freedoms will start to slip through your fingers.

One example of government taking a swing at our freedom of speech is the "Stop Online Piracy Act" or (SOPA), which claimed to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking of counterfeit goods. Now, this all sounds good and well, but like many other bills, this was right for abuse.

Provisions include the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with websites they decide have infringed on a copyright. It would also ban search engines from linking to the infringing websites, and force internet service providers to block access to the sites. It would also expand the existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of any copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison and possible fines.

That could mean five years for uploading a video of yourself singing a song that was copyrighted by someone else.

That could mean five years for creating a video, or uploading a picture of your child with a movie playing on your TV in the background.

This bill would have made it very easy for government and corporations to censor what you say, and upload about their organizations, actions, words, or intentions, as well as keep tabs on your web activity.

I know you will probably try to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one. You're thinking, "Maybe they didn't intend for the bill to be used that way." But the reason for the bill is of no consequence. What matters is that it could have been used that way. What guarantee do we have that this bill wouldn't be abused? The government must realize that they have as much power as they possibly can without over stepping a very important boundary. We must hold fast against any further intrusion into our lives. We must refuse to give up anymore of our privacy. "What have we got to fear?", you might ask. "We aren't criminals. We aren't saying or doing anything illegal. Why should I care if the government is keeping tabs on my web activity?". And now I must ask this question of you... Do we need to be criminals to have the right to desire privacy? Maybe you aren't committing a crime, does that mean you want a camera on you every moment of your life?

Thanks to the many people and websites who apposed the SOPA bill, it was not passed. But where SOPA has fallen, many more internet censorship bills have, and will continue to arise.

TPP, SOPA, PROTECT IP Act, Cispa, and ACTA are just some of the bills that have attempted to quiet you.

And there are others which may not be obvious to you, due to vague information, loose terms, or multiple interpretations or definitions. Keep your eyes on new bills and our politicians. Remember that we must stand up for ourselves. We cannot expect to be treated fairly by a government which has repeatedly attempted to pass laws that would strip away our rights.

It is up to you

Control Guns, Control America

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 03:34:00 +0000

On Friday, July 20, 2012, a mass shooting took place inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. A man named James Holmes began firing into the audience, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others.

On December 14, 2012, an American tragedy took place at Sandy hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. 20 innocent children, as well six adult staff members were fatally shot by a man named Adam Lanza, age 20.

Adam Lanza James Holmes

After the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, every gun hating politician came crawling from every nook and crevice, to spread the message that guns are the root of all violence and evil that plagues the earth. They claim that even the most well meaning, law abiding citizen, when armed, becomes a menace to society. A huge percentage of government officials think that American citizens are no longer capable of the responsibility of owning and handling a firearm. It isn't the inept, ignorant politicians that surprise me, what surprises me is the increasing number of Americans who also believe that guns are too powerful an evil for U.S. citizens to handle. They are asking the U.S. government to disarm the men and women of America, to weaken the strength of the people. A well armed people is a people that can defend their freedom, and insure that their rights are never infringed upon. Once you have stripped away the second amendment, every other right and freedom becomes defenseless, laid bare before our government or anyone else who would wish to enslave the people of America. Following Sandy Hook, hundreds protested outside the NRA office in Washington, D.C., chanting, "Shame the NRA."

Of course the people have a right to gather and protest, for either side of the argument, but there seems to be a change in the mentality of America. Do we truly believe that our government should take things from us when they determine that it is too dangerous? What are they going to about stabbings? Are they going to make us use plastic silverware so we cant hurt ourselves or others? Has everyone forgotten the good guns have done in this country? The innocent men, women, and children, who have protected themselves with a gun- who have prevented rapes, murders, home invasions. Lets not forget headlines like this:

"Pregnant Tucson mom defends herself and her children with gun"(January 7, 2013 )

"15 year old boy uses his father's gun to stop 2 home invaders"(July 1, 2010)

"86 Year-Old Woman Uses Gun To Defend Herself From Intruder" (February 12, 2013 )

Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. There are already laws in place that address most gun issues.

None of the new gun laws being brought forward would have prevented the Sandy Hook, or Aurora tragedies. It is already illegal to kill somebody, it is already illegal to enter a school, or movie theater with a weapon. These already in-place gun laws are being observed by millions of gun owners in the U.S. Law abiding citizens are not the problem. The American people must realize that they will never succeed in stopping all violent crime. The perpetrators of these vile crimes do not care about the law. They do not think like a normal citizen, and they will not act like one. The men who committed these crimes were not going to stop because obtaining a gun was difficult. If guns were not available to them, they would resort to bombs, or other means. They would buy there weapons from black markets, or make their own, witch is not difficult in this time of easily obtained information.

Let's take a look at the drug trade in America. Drugs are illegal, yet you can obtain them on nearly every street corner or alley in every major city. Did making alcohol illegal stop people from drinking it during prohibition? The people wanted alcohol, so they found somebody that would supply it, legally or otherwise. I would also like to bring up the fact that hunting is not the reason for the second amendment. If deer were all we had to worry about we wouldn't need automatic weapons or assault rifles, unfortunately we have other things to worry about- like a power grabbing government and a society full of men and women who don't know the value of an INNOCENT life. I've heard the argument that our forefathers couldn't possibly fathom the weapons that would be available to people these days, and I'm sure they couldn't. But they intended our guns to be a precaution, in case Government got out of hand. Yes, that is the reason for the second amendment. And as our Government arms themselves with more and more sophisticated weapons is only seem right that we should as well. This is meant only to remind the Government that we are their employers, not their subjects, And that they are subject to OUR judgment.

Will the American public make things easier on our power grabbing government and disarm themselves? Not All Of Them! While Government can't seem to understand this, I know there are Americans who would rather die than hand over their rights- The very rights their fathers, and their father's fathers fought for.

Monsanto: From Agent Orange To The Dinner Table

noreply@blogger.com (The Aphorist ) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:27:00 +0000

What is Monsanto?

An American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur,

Missouri. Monsanto is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed. It is also the manufacturer of herbicide glyphosate, more commonly known as “Roundup“. But that’s not the only Monsanto brand you’re familiar with, chances are you have their products in your refrigerator, cabinets, and your garage. Funny that you can be a major consumer of a company you may have never heard of. If you have heard about them, you probably didn't hear the truth. Monsanto has gone to great lengths to improve their public persona and distance themselves from a past full of controversy. As a chemical company, they had contaminated the land and air with some of the most poisonous man-made substances ever conceived. Have you ever heard of DDT? No? What about PCBs, recombinant bovine? Well, how about Agent Orange? Yes, THAT Agent Orange.

During the Vietnam War, from 1962-1971, the United States military sprayed millions of gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam,

eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of "Operation Ranch Hand"

The program's main goal was to defoliate rural land, destroying foliage that could serve as cover for guerrillas. The U.S. began to target food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue. Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in Vietnam. Peasants fled to U.S-dominated cities to escape famine.

The urban population increased rapidly, going from just 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid urbanization created an unstable environment, and many of the unwilling immigrants were forced to live in slums. Records show that at least 6,542 spraying missions took place over the course of Operation Ranch Hand.

Effects on the Innocent:

The Vietnamese Red Cross has reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with devastating birth defects.

Cleft palate, hernias, mental disabilities, and extra toes and fingers are just some of the effects of Agent Orange. Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths and high levels of dioxin were found in their breast milk. High levels of dioxin were also found in the blood of U.S. soldiers who had served in Vietnam. During the 1970s, some veterans returning from Vietnam began to report skin rashes, psychological symptoms, cancer, and birth defects in their children, as well as other health problems.

Other Symptoms:

Ischemic Heart Disease

AL Amyloidosis

Porphyria Cutanea Tarda

Chloracne

Acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy

Respiratory cancers;

Ischemic heart disease;

Parkinson's disease;

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma;

Chronic b-cell leukemia;

Multiple myeloma;

Hodgkin's disease;

Prostate cancer;

Graves' disease.

Now the company claims to be a Sustainable agriculture company. Going so far as to boast the following-

"If there was one word to explain what Monsanto is about, it would have to be farmers. It is our purpose to help them meet the needs of a growing population."

The company has a reputation for being extremely aggressive when it comes to filing suits, They're also promoting the use of genetically modified seeds, and bovine growth hormones. We are in a time when most Americans are disconnected from where their food is produced. It is important that accurate information is available to consumers not only about what is or is not in their food but also about Who is producing it. Are these the people you want to support with your hard earned money? Is this the company that deserves your patronage? It is up to you, the consumer to decide whether or not a company like Monsanto survives. You won't get anywhere chasing the tail of the snake, you must go right for the head. By this I mean that you must attack this company, not with words or opinions, (They don't care what you have to say) but with that thing they love most- money. Small farms are going out of business to be replaced by large scale agriculture. Are you adding to the problem?

Boycott Monsanto

Do you want them Genetically modifying your food, and genetically engineering your seeds?