Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Excuse me it's for the children

This past week has seen a plethora of ideas for me to blog, unfortunately, I didn’t write them down straight away, so now I forget what they were.  Argh!  Nevertheless among those that I do remember, they can all be related to manipulation…

I’ve talked about kids being the free-pass to the world in the past.  Using kids is the ultimate weapon to subjugate others to one’s will.  It is the second most powerful vehicle to impose upon others.  What’s the first you ask?  Coercion.

Using kids is second only to blackmail or threat of death.  Pretty scary huh?   While coercion is immediately the most powerful, it is also quite clear and easily identifiable.  So the ultimate weapon remains kids.

On to the examples:

Porn:  this is one of my favourite round-about examples of government subjugation.  It starts innocently enough with terrorism.  

Prez. Bush, may the Lord have mercy on his soul, declares war on terrorism, and commands law that demands access to personal records.  This opens up the internet to scrutiny by the FBI and HS (Homeland Security).  Furthermore, the U.S. systematically applies pressure to other countries, read Canada, to release and make available private internet records.  

I’m not sure of the validity of such espionage upon the populace at large, but I’ll go along with it, for the sake of discussion.  I have seen no evidence that terrorism was quashed by anything other than excellent police investigative works.  Not much about internet use per se, but then do terrorists have internet access?  Do they have phones?  Cell-phones? Text messaging? Do they have mail?  Uh oh!  

The obvious conclusion becomes that all phone-calls and mail also need to be scrutinized as well.  If the movie Enemy of the State is to be believed the so-called NSA – National Security Agency already records phone calls.  (This is an excellent movie by the way, starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman, two of my favourite actors.)

So the internet vs. terror gambit doesn’t really take by itself, so the powers-that-be sprinkle some kids into the mix to legitimize trampling all over privacy.  Isn’t it a strange coincidence, the data monitoring can be used to track other criminals and low and behold, child molesters?  This is the angle being sold nowadays.  There really isn’t anything anyone can say against such argument.  Protesting, even on the basis of freedom and privacy will get you lynched, or worse, branded as a potential molester who is avarice of kiddie-porn, or at the very least aiding and abetting molesters!  WTF?

So the invasion of privacy law stays, instead of being used against terrorism, it is used to monitor all who use the net.  Nabbing terrorists becomes incidental.

Firearms: yeah, you knew that was coming.  

This is easily the worst case.  The debate for or against firearms will rage on forever, granted.  Yet the favourite ammunition used by the anti-gun lobby is: “oh my god, have you ever seen a dead child riddled with bullets.”   I really feel bad for Wendy.  Really, I do. No fooling.

It is disingenuous at best.  Utterly stupid at worse, and doesn’t hold any logical water whatsoever.  Her entire equation rests on the fact that children can get hurt or killed with firearms.  

So what?  This isn’t the issue, it has never been. The jackass pulling the trigger is the problem, but throw a dead child into the fray, and all of a sudden, her issue, while still false becomes totally unassailable.  

And I do mean totally:  Imagine for a minute if I was a newspaper reporter and brought to light that Wendy’s argument was asinine, in a column, right beside a picture of a bullet-riddled dead kid.  Can’t be done.

Back to Sex: public nudity

This is a completely subjective moral imperative.  For one, everybody is more or less naked in African tribes; of course the sheer heat might have something to do with it.

So why is it then that women in Ottawa aren’t allowed to go topless?  Social mores for sure, but the most common excuse: what could I tell my kids?  What example does it set for them?  They shouldn’t be subject to this.  Once again, this is an unbeatable position.


Not that I go out of my way to swear, but a few profanities escape my lips from time to time.  It is cyclical.  When I pay serious attention to my speech patterns, I will notice and try to diminish and even eliminate cussing from my vocabulary.  

I do admit that I often slip back into the bad habit, before focusing on fixing it again.  I am conscious of this, and try my best, but like I said, it is cyclical.   But I have gotten a mother’s ire on a few occasions when I let slip an unseemly word in presence of a child.

I such cases, I have a choice, either tell mom to fuck-off, or I can leave, or I can stop talking.  I will slip again within minutes if I do keep talking.  These are my only options, since it’ll take at least a few weeks to completely eradicate cussing - yet again.  

All for the sake of the kid… With mom’s few words, I have become mute, until the offended is out of earshot.  I’m not saying mom was wrong, I’m just saying the levelled weapon is very effective indeed.  Is it not?

I see examples of using kids to controlling individuals at large every single day.  I have noticed that it is so prevalent that whenever a child is present in a general situation or sentence, I immediately look for and find, the hammer wielding control freak alongside.  

Adding a child’s welfare into any conversation will not only tug at heartstrings, it’ll chain-block the mess with a 10-ton hydraulic winch.

So now you know...  If you want to control someone else’s actions unequivocally, simply find, or invent, the kid-angle and have at it.


Post a Comment

<< Home