Portable, real-time brain monitoring now available

Portable real-time eavesdropping on the brain is now working technology, according to a report at the Volokh Conspiracy:

“Consider this – one of my favorite neuroscientists, Jack Gallant, is building a brain-mind map. In one of his extraordinary studies, he showed subjects YouTube videos while monitoring their brain activity using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). He then built a computer algorithm “dictionary” of the brain (this brain activity corresponds to this image in the YouTube video, and so forth). Using his brain/mind/dictionary, he showed the subject new YouTube video clips that the computer didn’t get to “see” and the computer had to “guess” what the subjects were seeing. The results are really striking. Of course, an fMRI machine is enormous, so law enforcement isn’t going to use it in the field anytime soon (or ever). By contrast, portable brain monitoring has serious potential. (Full disclosure – I already own two Neurosky portable electroencephalograph (EEG) devices, which I use to hack into my own brain activity to improve my concentration, to meditate, and more.) The Parvizi study used electrocorticography. Since we already have really simple EEG devices (they don’t measure much just yet), you can bet it’s just a matter of time before we get high-quality portable brain monitoring. In fact, DARPA has been gearing up for just that (check out its “Portable Brain Recording Device & App” Project, SB131-002). Is this the future of law enforcement and surveillance?”

Volokh on the constitutionality of revenge porn laws

Eugene Volokh:

“Of course, I can imagine a few situations in which such depictions might contribute to public debates. But those situations are likely to be so rare that the law’s coverage of them wouldn’t make it “substantially” overbroad (even if the “no legitimate purpose” proviso is seen as too vague to exclude those valuable non-consensual depictions of nudity). Any challenges to the law based on such unusual cases would therefore have to be to the law as applied in a particular case. A facial challenge asking that the law be invalidated in its entirety, based on just these few unconstitutional applications, would not succeed.

I recognize that United States v. Stevens (2010) held that “The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits,” and that First Amendment exceptions be limited to “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and the like, which are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

But even under this sort of historical approach, I think non-consensual depictions of nudity could be prohibited. Historically and traditionally, such depictions would likely have been seen as unprotected obscenity (likely alongside many consensual depictions of nudity). And while the Court has narrowed the obscenity exception — in cases that have not had occasion to deal with non-consensual depictions — in a way that generally excludes mere nudity (as opposed to sexual conduct or “lewd exhibition of the genitals”), the fact remains that historically such depictions would not have been seen as constitutionally protected.”

Comment:

Volokh’s credentials, both as a libertarian and a scholar, are impeccable.

Even so, even if constitutional,  it doesn’t mean that the new law might not be poorly drawn up.

As a matter of fact, what I saw of the California law, with its reliance on proof of malicious intent, seemed quite toothless.

But it is at least a starting point.

Contra Volokh, an across-the-board  law against the posting of nude/sexual pictures, without the subject’s explicit consent, would be better.  Naturally, entertainment or pornography involving consenting adults would be excluded.  So the charges of “anti-porn” would be defanged.  Porn addicts can still download triple XXX stuff to their heart’s content. They just can’t download material with non-consenting subjects.

I think that kind of simple clear law is less likely to be gamed, actually, than one that is hemmed in by too many ifs and buts.

In defense of revenge porn (no, really)

We don’t need the law to catch up with technology, people are the ones who need to be doing the catching up, argues Jeremy Wilson.

JW (Jeremy Wilson) “All across America, privacy campaigners are gleefully hailing the recent signing into law of a Californian bill designed to end “revenge porn”, the grim practice of posting nude photos and videos of former romantic partners on the internet.”

LILA: Gleeful isn’t the word I’d use to describe how victims are talking about this.  It sounds more like extraordinary relief. Also, one doesn’t have to have been the victim of revenge porn to greet some public discussion of the matter with gratitude. Cyberstalking of women with salacious and false accusations/innuendo is quite as harmful. For that, no selfies need exist. Indeed, no photos need exist at all. Just demented minds and evil imaginations.

JW: The bill criminalises the distribution “with the intent to harass or annoy” of nude images that were taken with the understanding that they were to remain private. It’s the first of a raft of similar proposals that are sweeping the country; New York will soon have a similar law if the proposals of legislators are adopted.

LILA: Actually, if the pictures were taken with the understanding they were to remain private, they are already illegal, under current law. Probably copyright law might address the issue.  The issue is not that there aren’t laws already on the books. The issue is they can’t always be used effectively to address revenge porn; the issue is that prosecution is futile against the perps who often have no money (exactly the kind of person who would have the time to do this stuff).

There is also the fact that computers can be accessed remotely and cameras and recording devices turned on remotely, without the knowledge of the target.

JW: “But the campaigners are wrong, and lawmakers out of their depth. Revenge porn isn’t going anywhere.

Lila: Incorrect. While I support the petitioners on the merits, I’m also aware that the powers that be have their own interest in the matter. Revenge porn laws will be written, rest assured.

The question is will they be written to help prevent crimes, or will they be written to enable a political pay-off and allow certain people to game the system? Also, could they be used as pretext for more government surveillance of the net?

That’s why any law has to be vetted very carefully or it will go the way of SOPA, also needed, but also ultimately ruined by the way it was written.

JW:

What’s the difference between someone posting private pictures online to hurt someone and someone who is simply ambivalent about the hurt they might cause? That’s just the first problem the lawmakers have made for themselves in their attempts to negotiate the first amendment.

Lila: Exactly right. That’s why intention shouldn’t be made an issue. The criminality should extend to the posting of nude content across the board, if done without consent.

JW:

Let’s be clear: the “revenge porn” authorities are trying to regulate isn’t hidden camera, stolen or underage content. There’s plenty of legal recourse against that sort of material already and the authorities should pay serious attention to the increasing amounts of it.

Lila: As a matter of fact, those crimes are hard to prosecute, as well, simply because of the complexity of technology and the difficulty of proving who uploaded what.

Again, that argues for a broader, simpler approach that removes discretion from the investigators and police and prevents the government gaming the whole thing.

JW:

What they are trying to do instead is regulate the consequences of stupid decisions made by adults: i.e., allowing yourself to be filmed performing sex acts, somehow imagining that the footage or photos won’t ever see the light of day.

Lila: Many of these girls didn’t consent to being photographed by anyone. Others had photos stolen. Some apparently did  it at the demand of boyfriends whom they trusted.

Very foolish, but among young women in this pornographic culture, it’s quite wide-spread.

Why not put some blame on the boyfriends who upload it and the porn culture which no one dares to criticize because so much corporate profit rides on it?

JW:

Well, I’m sorry, but the law’s not here to scrub your life clean of your own bad choices.

Lila: Do I note a hint of glee in your language? Are you sure you’re not making this into pay-back for all the women you dated?

The women made bad choices, yes.

So did US tax-payers in hiring Goldman Sachs to service government contracts.

It doesn’t mean Goldman Sach should get off, or is that your position?

JW:

As has been widely discussed, another gaping hole in the the Californian law is that it doesn’t cover pictures taken by the victim – i.e., selfies, the mainstay of revenge porn. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the author of the law, Sen. Anthony Cannella, excluded selfies from the bill as the already overcrowded Californian prison population wouldn’t be able to cope with the convictions that would be generated.

No, really.

Lila: There can be a punishment not involving prison. Perhaps a few candid shots of their morning ablutions will cure them of their nasty voyeurism.

FW:

A survey by the Florida-based Cyber Civil Rights Initiative found that 80 per cent of revenge porn victims had taken the photos or videos themselves. This is the crux of the issue: the vast majority of revenge porn is self-taken content.

Lila: That may be true of revenge porn. But as I said revenge porn is only one aspect of a huge social problem. I mentioned medical information/photos hacked from computers. I could also mention bank information posted, hacked and photo-shopped images, spoofed emails, recorded conversations with lawyers or accountants. All of them could be hugely embarrassing and/or damaging to a person’s livelihood.

Do you remember Prince Charles’ taped conversations with Camilla Parker-Bowles? Or the photo-stalking of celebrities like Paris Hilton or Kate Middleton?

All that personal stuff, including random candid camera shots intended to humiliate, are also things that need to be considered.

I am not talking about  political material or of public figures. Anything to do with serious public interest would naturally be excepted.

JW:

Hunter Moore, who once ran the most notorious revenge porn site on the web, has characterised the law as something designed to “help stupid people feel better”. He’s right.

Lila: Hunter Moore, a professional pornographer, is talking about inventory he doesn’t have to pay for for his business. He’s hardly disinterested.

JW:

Flash your tits or wap out your wang on camera, share it with someone else and you have no excuses when those photos turn up online. Or, to put it in legalese, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Lila: Actually, you’re wrong, even though you’re flashing legalese like you know something about it.

You can indeed photograph yourself and have an expectation of privacy.

Think about an athlete photographing muscle development of the leg or chest, or a patient recording the progress of an operation? Or a ballet dancer trying to analyze a posture. There are scores of reasons why someone might have a private picture they needed for quite non-sexual reasons.

You even have an expectation of privacy in email, I should tell you, since so much business is conducted that way.  It’s pornographers who will have to catch up with the law.

JW:

Persecuting someone for sharing images you took of yourself and sent to them is itself a kind of petty revenge, often resulting simply from embarrassment. But the embarrassment is most likely your own doing.

Lila: Word games aren’t going to persuade the best legal minds in the country.  Actually,  human rights law disagrees with you. Embarrassment of some kinds is not considered “simple” but quite complex and traumatic enough to be regarded as a form of torture. Humiliation, especially sexual humiliation, is considered a form of torture. Go look it up.

I think most countries get this. In the US, however, raunch culture and its gurus have taken over and brainwashed a significant section of the population.

But just as American criticism of acid-throwing and forced begging in India is accurate, so also criticism of this horrible social evil is accurate.

JW:

Yes, that person betrayed your trust. But refusing to accept any responsibility and whining at the state to step in to help you punish him has more chilling effects than just producing laws so useless they’re offensive. In fact, it’s almost immoral.

Lila: Nice try, but the women didn’t agree to let their personal photos be used publicly. Which part of that do you not get? Whining is a loaded word and could just as easily be used to describe your piece.

As for political speech being chilled, the biggest reason political speech is chilled is not censorship or government oppression, it’s the cowardice, corruption, and complicity of journalists.  Prurient pictures are not needed to do good journalism.

What wonderful thought of yours will we miss because of revenge porn laws? Do tell, and I’ll  be sure to book-mark it.

JW

Images can’t be removed from the internet

Lila: Oh yes they can.  Get a legal notice and see how fast they come down.  Not too many people link child porn or replicate it or Google it, now, do they? I’m not suggesting child porn laws as a model, because they are based on the consumption or even possession of porn, which, in this context would be an approach that’s over-broad.

But the replication or re-posting of images can be curtailed, for sure.

JW:

and trampling over freedom of expression in the attempt to do so is crazy.

Lila: Your crazy is my sane.

JW:

I’m not being facetious: if a law had prevented us from meeting Carlos Danger, the New York Mayoral race might have looked quite different.

Lila: Oh dear. So your right to see Anthony Weiner’s private parts trumps someone else’s right to be free of being stalked and threatened? I think not. The information about Weiner didn’t entail an illustration, you know.

JW:

We are all going to have to get used to this new social landscape in which anything we take and share can pop up in unexpected places.

Lila: Ah. The normalization of the surveillance state. I was wondering when that would come. So do you also think it’s fine for the TSA to grope you and for the NSA to stalk you?

JW:

Don’t like how you look under public scrutiny? Then get to the gym.

Lila:  My. So women should work out just in case they might one day be spreadeagled across the internet to meet your demanding standards. Perhaps we should check you out.  Unfortunately, a work-out might not help there. Just fyi, many people do not care to become pornography, not matter how they look. Even if they were in perfect shape, they wouldn’t want it. Or does that thought baffle you?

JW:

We don’t need the law to catch up with technology on this issue: it’s people who need to be doing the catching up.

Lila: Actually, the law does need to catch up and so do people. But thanks to the blast of publicity around this, more people are going to.

If the law doesn’t address it, people will take matters into their hand, and retaliate with cameras, as vigilantes.  Then the security state will take an even more  grotesque turn. No man will be able to date a woman, without worrying if she’s recording him in the bathroom, because that will be the next arena.

The upshot will be a nation where no one will interact with anyone else without a detailed contract and frisking for electronic bugging.

There is no easy solution to this problem. These women might have been foolish, but many people who have been careful, who have used encryption, and who are guilty of nothing more than being truthful and following their own research, are going also being victimized.

Revenge porn is enforced involuntary pornography

Amanda Marcotte at TalkingPointsMemo makes the essential point succinctly. There is nothing un-libertarian about standing up to forcing a woman to be in pornography:

“As long as revenge porn is legal, it is legal for a man that you’ve rejected to force you into a relationship with him anyway, and a sexual one at that, as he uses your body for sexual ends against your will online over and over and over again. With this understanding, we’ve already got laws limiting the trade of child pornography. Free speech will survive forcing men to merely mouth their bad opinions about their exes online instead of conscripting them into pornography.”

This is exactly correct.

Anyone whose pictures or intimate information  is forcibly put on the net against their will is  being subjected to public voyeurism, which is a misdemeanor, even off the net.

It should also come under the common law of tort, in that it is a public disclosure of private information.

But then consider the amplification provided by repeated downloading on the net and what you have is a multiplication of the original offense,  compounded by the fact that the voyeurs are strangers, often with a malicious intention.

The exact crime then would be multiple public voyeurisms, to which are added sexual humiliation, invasion of privacy, false light and defamation, and, of course, plain harassment and stalking .

Revenge porn is in addition enforced sex-work, a form of online prostitution, really, because a number of the viewers would be looking at the pictures in lieu of paid pornography.

Where I differ from the mainstream consensus is in not seeing this as a uniquely feminist or even sexual issue.

Enforced humiliation isn’t confined to sexual imagery of ex-girlfriends.

What about computer hacking of private information that is then posted online anonymously, as a way to coerce, punish, threaten?

What about emails or phone conversations with activists (in my case) where the content is not sexual but political?

What about medical information or pictures?

What about police galleries filled with mug-shots shaming people perpetually, often over trivial offenses?

What about sensitive financial information? Or photos that are doctored? Or emails that are faked?

There are scores of things that could permanently damage someone.

And that is the issue. The net is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from the non-virtual world. It’s time we recognized it.

We give a statute of limitations to crimes in the “real world” but when it comes to the net, everything stays for eternity.

Behavior that would considered criminal or sociopathic in the world (steaming open people’s postal mail, spying on their bedrooms or bathrooms, following them, threatening or blackmailing them) is somehow fine when it’s done on the net.

The question of how the law would work is a different one.

I’m not certain the current law being adopted in California and other places is even helpful, although it surely raises the issue powerfully.

The net has not been properly conceptualized and analyzed in the legal profession yet, so that existing laws aren’t properly interpreted to cover forms of digital crime. There may indeed be no reason for additional laws, if the current ones were correctly interpreted, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Globalists embark on new anti-slavery crusade

I just saw this:

Nearly 30 million people across the world are currently living in slavery, according to a report published Thursday. The inaugural Global Slavery Index, compiled by the Walk Free Foundation, estimates the prevalence of slavery in 162 countries, based on both internal research and data from UNICEF and the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report. According to the report (PDF), slavery is most prevalent as a percentage of the population in Mauritania, Haiti, and Pakistan.

India, China, and Pakistan are among the countries where slavery is most prevalent in absolute terms; together with Nigeria, Ethiopia, and five other countries, they account for more than 75 percent of the world’s enslaved population.

[Lila: Well, India and China and Pakistan are the most populous countries, so that would stand to reason.]

Walk Free was founded last year by Andrew Forrest, an Australian billionaire who made his fortune in the mining industry. Its index has received endorsements from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“I urge leaders around the world to view this index as a call to action, and to stay focused on the work of responding to this crime,” Clinton said in a statement provided to the Associated Press.”

Nobody would excuse the crushing problem of child-labor or the sex-trade in India.

But let’s take a closer look at these figures.

Here’s a piece on the sale of children, in Salon magazine.

The sale of children runs to 90,000 per year, it reports.

That is roughly 1/10th of a million or 1/100th of a billion. The Indian population is about 1.5 billion, so that means it’s about .05 percent of a billion.

Now that is bad enough, but given the whole complex of social ills, the vast size of the population and the general poverty of the country, I don’t find these figures terrible at all.

Indeed, I’d say they are far lower than I would expect.

In any case, when you see Rothschild entities behind a global drive, one has to be very cautious. When you have Bill Gates, Tony Blair, Hillary  Clinton, and the Australian billionaire behind WalkFree, Andrew Forrest, be sure there is something else at work.

Look at the statistics behind the headlines.

While the newspaper  I just cited headed its story responsibly and didn’t create the impression that India and China have the greatest problem with enslavement of people (i.e. proportionate to their populations), the rest of the Rothschild media was less cautious.

Here are two headlines:

“Revealed: India is home to half of the world’s nearly thirty million slaves”  (LA Times)

Lila: Since India is home to about a 1/6th, if not 1/5th, of the world’s population (roughly 1.5 billion) and since it is home to more than  of the world’s impoverished who are naturally desperate to work in any circumstance,  in that context, the numbers are far less alarming.

15 million or so is only about 0.1% of the population.

Compare that to Mauritania’s 20% of the population.

Remember that in terms of  per capita income, India is not there much ahead

of sub-h

ran Afria. In that context, the rates of domestic servitude (the correc

erm)aret

ltha t

raordiny.

Also,  what is being included in the term slavery?

All of the following:

1. Debt bondage

2.  Forced labor of men, women, and children

3.  Forced marriage

4.  The sex trade

5. Bonded labor.

6. Forced beggary.

This last is a horrible thing.

Young children are kidnapped and then mutilated and forced to beg. Giving them money only makes their exploiters greedier and more likely to kidnap another child, but not giving them money might end in the child starving. Besides, the child is forced out on the streets alone, so there’s no knowing who’s behind it.

But how many kidnapped children are there?

The report notes “by far the largest proportion of this problem is the exploitation of Indians citizens within India itself, particularly through debt bondage and bonded labour.”

The whole piece is quite misleading, in that it is lumping low-wage labor ($33 a month) in homes in the same category as the child-sex trade.

$33 a month in a country is about Rs. 2000/mth (or Rs. 24000/yr), which, while it isn’t high is certainly not starvation wages, especially since most homes also give the servants free medicine, free supplies, food, and a place to stay.  Indian per capita income is nearly Rs. 6000/mth (roughly Rs. 68000/yr) or about three times that wage.

America’s per capita income is around  $ 42,000/yr, so the equivalent figure in the US would be about $14,000/yr or something less than $2000/mth (versus Rs. 2000/mth for Indian “slave wages.”)

The Indian figures might have a different purchasing power, but are they really that startling?

Many professionals made that amount only a few decades ago.

The only problem is thanks to rampant money printing, the Indian rupee is at all time lows against the dollar. For that, and for the dreadful economy, the globalist “privatization” of the economy, coupled with hijacking of the financial system, is to blame.

But the propaganda is all part of the on-going psychological warfare against India, specifically, about which I blogged at and here and here, and against immigrants (see “Patrick Buchanan sings the white man’s blues”).

“”Although other countries have a greater proportion of their population in bondage, India’s estimated 13.9 million enslaved people is by far the greatest, more than four times that of the next largest country, China, with 2.9 million. Pakistan ranked third with 2.1 million people. The 162-nation survey found that modern-day slavery exists in most countries in some form, including the United States, Canada, Japan and Western Europe nations.

Much of the traffic in enslaved Indian domestic workers is organized by dubious employment agencies that are virtually unregulated despite an order from the Delhi High Court that mandated the government to set operating guidelines.”

So, there it is. The labor is UNREGULATED and that’s what’s got the globalists worried. The cheap pool of labor competes with the labor available to the multinationals and makes home-grown businesses a threat. I daresay that’s the real motivation behind this new-found interest by the power elites in domestic labor in India.

Meanwhile, what are the stats about slavery in the West?

“At the other extreme, Iceland was estimated to have just 100 slaves for a population of 320,000. And even though Canada and Western Europe ranked low on the survey, they are still home to thousands of slaves, while the U.S. had an estimated 60,000 and Japan around 80,000.”

So Iceland, the best country, has 100 per 320,000, which amounts to 1 in 3200, which is about 30 times fewer, true, but in a country whose GDP is also roughly 30 times higher.

The US at 60,000 in a country of over 300 million is at 1 in 3000.

Relative to the rates of literacy, the GDP, and the other social problems in the country, I don’t see the Indian numbers as all that remarkable at all, although still a horrendous tragedy.

Simultaneously, the NY Times on Oct. 6, 2013 had a piece about sex-trafficking in India:

“Persistent poverty is a major factor. Many vulnerable women and girls are lured by promises of employment, and some parents are desperate enough to sell their daughters to traffickers. Rapid urbanization and the migration of large numbers of men into India’s growing cities creates a market for commercial sex, as does a gender imbalance resulting from sex-selective abortion practices that has created a generation of young men who have little hope of finding female partners. India’s affluence is also a factor, luring European women into India’s sex trade. The caste system compounds the problem. Victims of sex trafficking disproportionately come from disadvantaged segments of Indian society.”

I would dearly love to know exactly how many European women are in this Indian sex trade.

This is of dubious significance and  likely inserted as racial baiting.

The number s for global sex-trafficking can be found here.

They run at 4 million world-wide; in the  US at 45-50,000 annually (about 1 in 6000); at about 200,000 sex-workers in cities in India (that is about 1 in 7000, which is lower than the US numbers.

Moreover, these numbers have vastly swelled since the liberalization of India in the 1990s, when the influx of multinational corporations created a huge migration from the villages to the cities, with all the attendant problems. Add to these, the vast difference in pay between foreign-employed and locally-employed or unemployed youth, the burden on the infrastructure by this huge migration, rampant corruption not simply in the government but in the private sector, and you get the picture of a country undergoing huge economic stresses. Such stresses usually exacerbate social problems.

Honor killings in America

The concept of honor, now derided as so medieval, so Islamic, was alive and well in America only a century or so ago.

Dishonor, not death, was the thing most greatly feared and the quality of life that developed around that ideal was one we to which we look back in nostalgia as something utterly lost to us now.

From “The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man’s Guide to Chivalry”:

“The first duel in America was fought in 1621 and the last — well, perhaps it has yet to be fought. “Judicial Combat” as it was sometimes known — ironically since it was generally illegal — was governed by the twenty-five rules of the Code Duello, established in Ireland just after the American Revolution.

So popular did dueling become in the States, though, that in 1838 the governor of South Carolina, John Lyde Wilson, felt compelled to revise and update the code for a specifically American milieu.

The 1804 duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, fought along the banks of the Hudson River in Weehawken, New Jersey, is the most famous in American history, but many other prominent Americans also dueled. Andrew Jackson was nearly killed in one. Charles Dickinson shot at the future president but only wounded him. Jackson swooned and collapsed, but not before he aimed and fired. Dickinson fell dead and a good thing too. He’d previously killed twenty-six of his fellow citizens in duels.

The Code included provisions for apologies after the first shots were fired. If the quarrel was settled with swords, and the man challenged to the duel won but spared the life of the challenger, the dispute was settled … unless, that is, the challenger wished to revive it: “Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.” A sense of civilization is in there someplace. At least the Code Duello protected bystanders from barrages of bullets in taverns and on Main Street — until the Old West gunfight became popular, anyway.

But beloved General Lee would have none of it. His sense of honor was exactly the old franchise of the knights, as we see in this excerpt from a letter he wrote to his son:

You must study to be frank with the world. Frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do, on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right…

Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so is dearly purchased at the sacrifice. Deal kindly but firmly with all your classmates; you will find it the policy which wears best. Above all, do not appear to others what you are not.

If you have any fault to find with any one, tell him, not others, of what you complain; there is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man’s face and another behind his back…

Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things like the old Puritan. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less. Never let your mother or me wear one gray hair for any lack of duty on your part.”

If that sounds like Polonius, listen more carefully. This is a man speaking his own words from his own heart.

When Lee died, the London Standard wrote: “A country which has given birth to men like him, and those who followed him, may look the chivalry of Europe in the face without shame; for the fatherlands of Sidney and Baryard never produced a nobler soldier, gentleman and Christian.”

And G.K. Chesterton called Lee “the last of the heroes”. As the old general expired, his last words were “Strike the tent!”

In defense of fathers…

From “My Father,” by T.S. Arthur:

“”Anna,” he said, after a brief silence, during which even my unpracticed eyes could see that an intense struggle was going on in his mind, “Anna, you will have to give up your visit to Saratoga this year.”

“Why, father!” It seemed as if my blood were instantly on fire. My face was, of course, all in a glow. I was confounded, and, let me confess it, indignant; it seemed so like a tyrannical outrage.

“It is simply as I say, my daughter.” He spoke without visible excitement. “I cannot afford the expense this season, and you will, therefore, all have to remain in the city.”

“That’s impossible!” said I. “I couldn’t live here through the summer.”

I manage to live!” There was a tone in my father’s voice, as he uttered these simple words, partly to himself, that rebuked me. Yes, he did manage to live, but how? Witness his pale face, wasted form, subdued aspect, brooding silence, and habitual abstraction of mind!

I manage to live!” I hear the rebuking words even now–the tones in which they were uttered are in my ears. Dear father! Kind, tender, indulgent, long-suffering, self-denying! Ah, how little were you understood by your thoughtless, selfish children!

“Let my sisters and mother go,” said I, a new regard for my father springing up in my heart; “I will remain at home with you.”

“Thank you, dear child!” he answered, his voice suddenly veiled with feeling. “But I cannot afford to let any one go this season.”

“The girls will be terribly disappointed. They have set their hearts on going,” said I.

“I’m sorry,” he said. “But necessity knows no law. They will have to make themselves as contented at home as possible.”

And he left me, and went away to his all-exacting “business.”

When I stated what he had said, my sisters were in a transport of mingled anger and disappointment, and gave utterance to many unkind remarks against our good, indulgent father. As for my oldest sister, she declared that she would go in spite of him, and proposed our visiting the store of a well-known merchant, where we often made purchases, and buying all we wanted, leaving directions to have the bill sent in. But I was now on my father’s side, and resolutely opposed all suggestions of disobedience. His manner and words had touched me, causing some scales to drop from my vision, so that I could see in a new light, and perceive things in a new aspect.

We waited past the usual time for my father’s coming on that day, and then dined without him. A good deal to our surprise he came home about four o’clock, entering with an unusual quiet manner, and going up to his own room without speaking to any one of the family.

“Was that your father?” We were sitting together, still discussing the question of Saratoga and Newport. It was my mother who asked the question. We had heard the street door open and close, and had also heard footsteps along the passage and up the stairs.

“It is too early for him to come home,” I answered.

My mother looked at her watch, and remarked, as a shade of concern flitted over her face,

“It certainly was your father. I cannot be mistaken in his step. What can have brought him home so early? I hope he is not sick.” And she arose and went hastily from the room. I followed, for a sudden fear came into my heart.

“Edward! what ails you? Are you sick?” I heard my mother ask, in an alarmed voice, as I came into her room. My father had laid himself across the bed, and his face was concealed by a pillow, into which it was buried deeply.

“Edward! Edward! Husband! What is the matter? Are you ill?”

“Oh, father! dear father!” I cried, adding my voice to my mother’s, and bursting into tears. I grasped his hand; it was very cold. I leaned over, and, pressing down the pillow, touched his face. It was cold also, and clammy with perspiration.

“Send James for the doctor, instantly,” said my mother.

“No, no–don’t.” My father partially aroused himself at this, speaking in a thick, unnatural voice.

“Go!” My mother repeated the injunction, and I flew down stairs with the order for James, our waiter, to go in all haste for the family physician. When I returned, my mother, her face wet with tears, was endeavoring to remove some of my father’s outer garments. Together we took off his coat, waistcoat and boots, he making no resistance, and appearing to be in partial stupor, as if under the influence of some drug. We chafed his hands and feet, and bathed his face, that wore a deathly aspect, and used all the means in our power to rekindle the failing spark of life. But he seemed to grow less and less conscious of external things every moment.

When the physician came, he had many questions to ask as to the cause of the state in which he found my father. But we could answer none of them. I watched his face intently, noting every varying expression, but saw nothing to inspire confidence. He seemed both troubled and perplexed. Almost his first act was to bleed copiously.

Twice, before the physician came, had my father been inquired for at the door, a thing altogether unusual at that hour of the day. Indeed, his presence in the house at that hour was something which had not occurred within a year.

“A gentleman is in the parlor, and says that he must see Mr. W—-,” said the waiter, speaking to me in a whisper, soon after the physician’s arrival.

“Did you tell him that father was very ill,” said I.

“Yes; but he says that he must see him, sick or well.”

“Go down and tell him that father is not in a state to be seen by any one.”

The waiter returned in a few moments, and beckoned me to the chamber door.

“The man says that he is not going to leave the house until he sees your father. I wish you would go down to him. He acts so strangely.”

Without stopping to reflect, I left the apartment, and hurried down to the parlor. I found a man walking the floor in a very excited manner.

“I wish to see Mr. W.—-,” said he, abruptly, and in an imperative way.

“He is very ill, sir,” I replied, “and cannot be seen.”

“I must see him, sick or well.” His manner was excited.

“Impossible, sir.”

The door bell rang again at this moment, and with some violence. I paused, and stood listening until the servant answered the summons, while the man strode twice the full length of the parlor.

“I wish to see Mr. W—-.” It was the voice of a man.

“He is sick,” the servant replied.

“Give him my name–Mr. Walton–and say that I must see him for just a moment.” And this new visitor came in past the waiter, and entered the parlor.

“Mr. Arnold!” he ejaculated, in evident surprise.

“Humph! This a nice business!” remarked the first visitor, in a rude way, entirely indifferent to my presence or feelings. “A nice business, I must confess!”

“Have you seen Mr. W.—-?” was inquired.

“No. They say he’s sick.”

There was an unconcealed doubt in the voice that uttered this.

“Gentlemen,” said I, stung into indignant courage, “this is an outrage! What do you mean by it?”

“We wish to see your father,” said the last comer, his manner changing, and his voice respectful.

“You have both been told,” was my firm reply, “that my father is too ill to be seen.”

“It isn’t an hour, as I am told, since he left his store,” said the first visitor, “and I hardly think his illness has progressed so rapidly up to this time as to make an interview dangerous. We do not wish to be rude or uncourteous, Miss W—-, but our business with your father is imperative, and we must see him. I, for one, do not intend leaving the house until I meet him face to face!”

“Will you walk up stairs?” I had the presence of mind and decision to say, and I moved from the parlor into the passage. The men followed, and I led them up to the chamber where our distressed family were gathered around my father. As we entered the hushed apartment the men pressed forward somewhat eagerly, but their steps were suddenly arrested. The sight was one to make its own impression. My father’s face, deathly in its hue, was turned towards the door, and from his bared arm a stream of dark blood was flowing sluggishly. The physician had just opened a vein.

“Come! This is no place for us,” I heard one of the men whisper to the other, and they withdrew as unceremoniously as they had entered. Scarcely had they gone ere the loud ringing of the door bell sounded through the house again.

“What does all this mean!” whispered my distressed mother.

“I cannot tell. Something is wrong,” was all that I could answer; and a vague, terrible fear took possession of my heart.

In the midst of our confusion, uncertainty and distress, my uncle, the only relative of my mother, arrived, and from him we learned the crushing fact that my father’s paper had been that day dishonored at bank. In other words, that he had failed in business.

The blow, long suspended over his head; and as I afterwards learned, long dreaded, and long averted by the most desperate expedients to save himself from ruin, when it did fall, was too heavy for him. It crushed the life out of his enfeebled system. That fearful night he died!

It is not my purpose to draw towards the survivors any sympathy, by picturing the changes in their fortunes and modes of life that followed this sad event. They have all endured much and suffered much. But how light has it been to what my father must have endured and suffered in his long struggle to sustain the thoughtless extravagance of his family–to supply them with comforts and luxuries, none of which he could himself enjoy! Ever before me is the image of his gradually wasting form, and pale, sober, anxious face. His voice, always mild, now comes to my ears, in memory, burdened with a most touching sadness. What could we have been thinking about? Oh, youth! how blindly selfish thou art! How unjust in thy thoughtlessness! What would I not give to have my father back again! This daily toil for bread, those hours of labor, prolonged often far into the night season–how cheerful would I be if they ministered to my father’s comfort. Ah! if we had been loving and just to him, we might have had him still. But we were neither loving nor just. While he gathered with hard toil, we scattered. Daily we saw him go forth hurried to his business, and nightly we saw him come home exhausted; and we never put forth a hand to lighten his burdens; but, to gratify our idle and vain pleasures, laid new ones upon his stooping shoulders, until, at last, the cruel weight crushed him to the earth!

My father! Oh, my father! If grief and tearful repentance could have restored you to our broken circle, long since you would have returned to us. But tears and repentance are vain. The rest and peace of eternity is yours!”

Daily Bell back in the saddle

Agora-affiliated (which libertarian outlet isn’t?) Daily Bell is back in the saddle.

Despite its coziness with certain enemies of mine, I see this as a positive.

I don’t agree with all of their analyses but Anthony Wile’s opposition to the state is always couched in thoughtful terms and he has been alone among big libertarian outlets in taking on some stories, like the Snowden business.

Why they closed up and why they reopened is a bit mystifying.

But apparently, their Snowden analysis wasn’t enough for them to go down, as I’d earlier wondered.

Even if they are intelligence-linked, like so many American media initiatives, they nonetheless articulate valid concerns of the business/financial classes that don’t always get a hearing from the academic-media complex.

Even the CIA can have a legitimate point.

Eighty-year old shot in bed by cops

At LRC blog, Will Grigg describes the massacre of an elderly man by government goons:

“Mallory woke up to find armed men in his home. The elderly man’s glasses were on the nightstand beside him. His handgun was also within easy reach. After the panicking man reached for his gun, the intruders shot him six times.

The deputies who had invaded Mallory’s home weren’t responding to an emergency, nor were they pre-empting a criminal plot. They were serving a narcotics warrant issued in response to a claim that someone who had passed by the property smelled ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine.

After shooting the helpless old man in his bed and leaving him to die, the intruders assaulted and bound his terrified wife, Tonya Pate, then ransacked the property. Although they found no evidence that Mallory was an aspiring Heisenberg, they did locate an insignificant amount of marijuana – something not listed in the search warrant, but seized upon as validation of the murderous home invasion.

The Fourth Amendment, which was rendered irrelevant long ago, requires that in order for a warrant to be valid it must specify the items being sought. Additionally, a vague report of a suspicious smell doesn’t meet the Fourth Amendment’s standards for probable cause. This was acknowledged by the California Supreme Court in a decision announced a few hours after LA County deputies slaughtered Mallory. The Court ruled that police were not permitted to search a closed shipping package because it reeks of marijuana.

In that case, which arose from a 2010 arrest of a man accused of trying to ship pot to Illinois via FedEx, the police insisted that what they call the “plain smell test,” coupled with “exigent circumstances,” justified a warrantless search and seizure of the package. That argument didn’t pass the Court’s smell test.

If police aren’t permitted to seize a package that exudes the aroma of marijuana, it can’t be considered permissible to mount a daybreak no-knock raid of a residence on the basis of an unsupported claim that something in the surrounding air made an informant’s nostrils twitch.

Since the warrant was invalid, and the search was illegitimate, Mallory was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend himself. However, department spokesman Steve Whitmore insists that “The lesson here is … don’t pull a gun on a deputy.”

A more suitable lesson is this: We live in a country where criminals in uniform feel entitled to gun down elderly men in their beds”consequence of just leaving people alone to pursue their own desires.

Comment:

Fumbled for your handgun when someone busted in your door, eh? Can’t have any of that.

Seriously, why is this outrageous? It’s not…not today.

If you talk back to a traffic cop when you’re pulled over, even in broad daylight, if your hands aren’t visible, you might very well receive the same rough injustice.

They can..and will..blow you away.

In case you think that is idle speculation on my part, it’s not.

One of the strangest things about American society is how often you can have run up against the cops, the courts, and the mafia, all without doing anything more than going about your routine business.

But, while this might offend some,  police officers are not innately much more evil than the culture in which they’re raised. We live in a culture of home invasions, gang-violence, self-indulgence, belligerence, and contempt for the old and the weak.

Our police reflects and amplifies that broader culture, and also in turn reinforces it.

Power no doubt attracts a lesser breed of human-being, but your average cop wannabe, like George Zimmerman, is not evil so much as thoughtless, self-important, conditioned, and ready to lash out.

Add a badge and a gun, and what you have is not Milton’s Satan but a faulty chain-saw.

A chain-saw is not evil. It’s merely insensate.

The first law of not getting chopped up by a chain saw is – get out of its way.

In poor Mr. Mallory’s case none of this obtained.

The chain-saw came to him.

Moral of the story:

Disarm the police.

Allow them to carry nothing more than mace when serving warrants, unless they are cornering someone with a history of assault and/or notable violence.

Second.

End the war on drugs.

Meanwhile, if you do encounter the cops, here’s what I’ve learned:

1.  Don’t talk more than you need to. Don’t issue invitations and volunteer information. Talk too much and you will be arrested or cited as some kind of trouble-maker. Maybe you will earn a record as a crazy.

2. Be civil, even deferential, as the case might be. Soft soap often accomplishes  much more than belligerence.

3. Keep your hands visible at all times. Don’t for anything put them into your pockets.

4. Do not make sudden unannounced movements.

3. Record, if possible.

If not, take accurate notes, with date and time. If you don’t have pen and paper, turn on the audio of your cell phone, but let everyone know first. If not, you could be arrested for that, since tape-recording conversations unilaterally without permission is illegal in many states.

4.  Admit nothing.

5. Sign nothing, except under the threat of arrest, and even then, only if you’ve read and understood what you’re signing, and have spoken to a lawyer. Otherwise, arrest is probably a better choice. If the arrest is unlawful, you will have legal recourse.

6. As a general refrain, use the phrase “I’d like to talk to my lawyer.” You can intersperse this with
“My lawyer will address that,” “Talk to my lawyer,” and “Can I have a lawyer?”.

Use these phrases even if you don’t have a lawyer.

7. If the police man does something clearly wrong, address them as officers and point out what they are doing wrong in as technical, respectful, and legal a manner as possible.

If they mock you in any way, tell them coldly that as officers of the law, they are obliged to do their duty and no more.

Maintain your dignity, however much they show disrespect. Thank them as appropriate.

Do not issue verbal threats of any kind, no matter how much you’re provoked.

Disinfo on so-called anti-Zionist blogs

So far,  I suspect the following to be intelligence created or linked:

Lasha Darkmoon

Rense (this is pretty well-known)

Israel Shamir (also well-known)

Paul Craig Roberts

(all that extreme anti-Western language…meant to create a following among gullible immigrants maybe?)

I’m not too sure about Henry Makow. Lots of good information, coupled with some wild statements, but they could just be the errors of a zealot and not evidence of anything else.

There are many more, of course.

Lasha Darkmoon was a bit of a shot, but I suspect that she is a cover/front created by amalgamation from several other genuine web dissidents.  Or she might be a real person who has been roped into an intelligence project.

I base this theory on her extreme focus on Jewishness, while herself being Jewish; on certain aspects of her work, which seem derivative; on the suddenness with which she surfaced….and a few other telling things I’ll keep to myself.

That’s besides all the others-  Alex Jones, Benjamin Fulford, Bollyn (I’m in two minds here, because so much of his research is so reliable, but his resume is a give-away), and a bunch of others, like the Assange, Snowden, Greenwald group. I’m really not sure if Manning was just a patsy or something else.

That’s not to say that Mr. Greenwald didn’t do some excellent blogging on many issues…at least for a while.  I’ve linked his writing many times.

95% accurate and then a big, smelly red herring tossed in. That’s the modus operandi.

There are lots more sites, many of them baited with  “anti-Western” or “anti-Zionist” or even “anti-Jewish” red meat for disaffected Muslims or Muslim sympathizers, I suppose. Get on those sites and be sure someone is dredging up your IP address and tracking you.

You might even get to know what Miriam Carey meant by electronic harassment.

Also, when the proportion of rhetoric to fact rises, beware.

Look at the date the blog began and the number of posts. Does the blog seem to have come out of nowhere? Did it suddenly ride in on a tide of sentiment over some particular economic or political crisis?

Does it sound like an echo chamber of many voices that lacks one distinctive one?

When intelligence creates web persona, it amalgamates language from several bloggers, especially those the powers that be might want to side-line and neutralize.

This is probably computer-generated.

Memes that are circulating in public debate are captured and redirected through the fake dissident’s voice, creating an uneasy sense of deja vu in readers, who will recognize something uncanny in the writing. Something that sounds like an echo of their own words.

Beware of people who tell you what (they think) you want to hear…

Beware of people whose links stay close to the establishment alternatives.

Remember the intelligence agencies are constantly spying on blogs, hacking them, stealing information and then passing it off to their own tools.

So when you see your material surfacing elsewhere, it’s not always because some individual plagiarized you, although that too. Sometimes it’s because intelligence/or computer programs used by intelligence pass on the information to other bloggers and writers whom they then use as mouthpieces.