THE TROUBLE with ANTIBIOTICS

This Frontline Report is about how bacteria and viruses are becoming resistant to antibiotics. On America farms animals are fed antibiotics to keep them from becoming sick but this may be leading to dangerous new resistant bacteria. Also in hospital new superbugs are on the rise that are resistant to antibiotics and are highly infectious.
This report shows how the thinking "the markets will stop something bad" mentality is so wrong. Here we have a situation where people may be becoming sick, where worse situation and possible epidemic may be caused. But they can't or won't be stopped by people, or government because industry has too much money and therefor to much corrupting influence on politician, people and sadly the science. Because without a "smoking gun" many will happily allow themselves to be infected or allow the possibility. They will stop the science or allow it to not continue or be in depth so they can have cheap food and so the industry can continue to make fortunes.

FRONTLINE - THE UNITED STATES OF SECRETS PART 2

This is the second part of the PBS's Frontline investigative series on mass surveillance in America.

FRONTLINE UNITED STATES OF SECRETS PART 2
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5

Part two of this documentary tells the story of corporations and surveillance. The first thing of interest to me is how many internet providers, phone companies, and internet search engine companies are willing help the government giving much of the information they acquire. Second is none of them are willing to say no, that it is unconstitutional to give information about people. If corporations are people then aren't they also giving up their right to privacy as well. Third was even when these companies cooperated with the government it isn't enough and they would "hack" their system to get more information. These were the key things too me. To say the NSA has overreached is an understatement. But of course they still use fear. Fear that another attack will happen so of course they have to acquire everyone's information. It's ridiculous.

FRONTLINE - UNITED STATE OF SECRETS

If you want real investigative reporting on events happening in America I suggest you go to PBS Frontline. They take the time to get facts. They also will give in-depth accounts about a story you will not hear or at least not get a full description on from twenty four hour news.

FRONTLINE UNITED STATES OF SECRETS (PART 1)
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2 >
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 8

Part one of this documentary tells the story after 911 in America. How fear lead those in the Bush administration to create "The Program" a National Security Agency operation to spy on American citizens. For decades the NSA by law and protocol would only spy on foreign services. The Bush administration would use half truth, faulty legal standing, and war powers to create and keep this unconstitutional and illegal system.

It also talks about the NSA and intelligence committee individuals that struggle with what they knew was wrong and how they wanted or did bring the program to the press and public view.

President Obama ran against these same programs but when Bush put before congress legislation to make the program law he voted for it as Senator. Then as President months later did nothing to pull back the program from spying on Americans. Everyone has the same fear. What if you take this system away and there is another 911? If I stop this and it happens my Presidency is over or hurt severely. People will die and it will be my fault.

It a simple situation in my eyes. The right to privacy is constitutional. People died to make this a law. To make it a right of the people. If people have to die to keep it law then so be it. One has to make a choice either privacy law matters even if others can use it to hurt you or it doesn't. If it doesn't then let the NSA spy on whomever but don't lie to yourself that you live in the same America anymore. You don't live in a constitutional America at that point. You live in an authoritarian America. Where those in power decide what is law and what isn't.

However my thinking changes on this if the people in question are not citizens of America. It doesn't matter if they are on American soil or not. They don't get the same constitutional protections at least I don't believe they should.

ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM

Elephant in the Living Room is a documentary about how in America in most states it is legal (I repeat LEGAL) to buy exotic animals. Not only is it legal to buy these animals but one doesn't need to have a license. There is little to no state or federal regulations on those who own these animals.

I watched this documentary on Netflix. One of the moments that blew my mind was the emergency 911 call of a full grown lion on a interstate chasing cars. What makes this even more crazy is they captured the lion. They brought the lion back to it's "owner". Then Tim Harrison of public safety animal rescue says they can't take the lions from the owner until he decide he wants to let them go. I found this to be insane. The moment the lion escaped it becomes a public safety issue. How can it be they don't have the legal recourse to take the lions from him?

Over the years I have seen reports about how exotic animals can be bought in America. I have seen reports of how more tigers exist in America in private hands than they do in the wild in India. It is a lack of proper state and/or federal law making to have so if one owns a dog you need to have a license but if you buy a lion or a venomous viper you don't need one. You don't have to register the animal. I wonder when natural disasters happen will these animals get free? Has this happened?

I suggest you watch this documentary if you want to watch an interesting, sad and dramatic story about two captive lions. Or watch an interesting story of Tim Harrison fight to protect these animals and the general public from them. Or if you want to learn more about the dangers of people owning animals they can't control or can overwhelm them.


The trailer for Elephant in the Living Room.

WONDER WOMAN MOVIE THREE

Some more Wonder Woman short films I've come across. People want this movie so strongly they create their own. They can't wait for Warner Brothers studios and DC studios to act.
Check out my Wonder Woman script. Tell me what you think.
My wonder woman tumblr for those of you interesting in pix Gorgeous Wonders.

Wonder Woman // Into the World // Short by Richard Allen Presents

Wonder Woman // a short by Rainfall Films
This one is very popular.

I would like to see a movie useing some elements of both these short films.


Wonder Woman and Barda vs The Furies
This from the animated movie Superman\Batman - Apocalypse.

Wonder Woman vs. Deimos
This is from Wonder Woman (2009) animated movie.

Wonder Woman vs Darkseid (SPOILER ALERT this is the end of the movie so if you don't want to see it don't watch this clip)
This is a clip from the animated movie Justice League: War.

They use Wonder Woman correctly in the animated movies. They aren't afraid to let her be a warrior in the animated movies. She isn't this bad ass in some of the comics. And of course she isn't in the live action movies. But in the animated universe she is awesome.

THE OPPRESSED MAJORITY

Check it out at The JRT Wants

Wonder Woman Messed Up Golden Age Stories

I came across this blog (That I will make a link to when I find it again) that had some interesting pictures in it of DC comics golden age. These are the story ideas I found the most messed up. The golden age of comics had a very mean streak that was "normal" to most Americans. I think the ideas in these stories are more damaging to youngsters than the "sex and violence" most parents are so afraid of.

What makes this messed up? Wonder Woman is a warrior woman from an island of warrior women. The reason they went to this island was to get away for men thinking of them as lesser. Yet Wonder Woman volunteers to be just that, less.

What makes this messed up? Look at the men in this picture. Most of these guys are not warriors or soldiers. Yet the woman trained from birth is not fit enough for them to go to war. Even worse she doesn't complain. She just wishes them luck. I guess after she goes to answer the phone or type up whatever one would.

What makes this messed up? The way they drew the Japanese soldiers during World War Two. Also, looking at how the Justice League treats her. The Japanese soldiers actually show Diana more respect for her warrior abilities than her so called team members.

What makes this messed up? "A very feminine woman... a nurse," this quote and the idea that her mother would be proud basically says every reason the Amazons went to the island doesn't matter. Women shouldn't be warriors it's not feminine. Also it teaches the young boys who read this that women shouldn't be strong. No wonder so many older men are against women being "out of the home" aka want to live as it was in the fifties.

What makes this messed up? From the little I know of Golden Age stories the women always seem to either be boy crazy, stalkerish, or in some love triangle. It basically says that women can't have a story without being indecisive about men. The sad thing is this is still how many shows do stories with young girls today. So I will let it slide in the one where she is a teenager. However the problem is she still has the problem as an adult woman. And even worse she asks the reader to help her. She is so inept that she needs the reader (most likely a male at the time) to help her out. As a woman she can't be expected to do it all alone, right?

LIFE AT ANY PRICE (ABORTION LAWS)

This investigative report talks about how EL Salvador's abortion laws put women in medical danger or in prison. I believe these are the same laws and society the Republican right here in American wants to be law and enforced. This could be the future if their theocratic view of America is ever realized.
Aljazeera has decided to stop putting this show in my area. So I will place another on when if ever they decide to place such programming in Aljazeera America.
I don't know if this still plays outside of the US. Someone let me know.

Words of Wisdom

Words of Wisdom.

The Untold History of The United States

This is the first episode of Oliver Stone's Showtime program "The Untold History of the United States." It is an in-depth view on the politics domestic and foreign of the twentieth century. It also shows how the United States was changed by War World Two and how the United States changed the world after War World Two. Mostly it brushes aside the propaganda that American believes about itself during World War Two (especially when dealing with the Russians and Japanese).
For a long time I've been telling people that dropping "the Bomb" on Japan was useless but this series showed me not only how useless it was but also how it was a pathetic attempt to bully the Russians. If you like history, like truth, like to see the past without the propaganda then watch this series.


I will attempt to find another source for this video. Showtime took it off their youtube account.

LIFE WITHOUT ART IS STUPID

expect the best

believing in God

One argument I see over and over between Atheist and Theist is the belief in God. The Atheist gives the impression that if they had proof of God they would know he exist, so then believe. The Theist give the impression that believing in God is automatically knowing he is real. Both are wrong. Knowing something is real doesn't mean you will Believe in it. And Believing in something doesn't mean you know it is real.

For example, I will use the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Not because I thought it was so special he became president... I have Boondocks reaction to that. I use him because many in the world know of him and many in the world believe in him, some both.


In the United States election over 40% of the population, that voted, did not believe in Barack Obama. They voted for McCain, they knew Obama existed but didn't believe in him. While over 50%, that voted, elected Obama because they knew he existed and many would say they Believed in him.

Knowing someone exist is easy, you are simply aware of them. However believing in someone means you have faith or understanding they will do something that will favor you or be pleasing to you or others, and that they have a plan that you accept. Many voted for Obama cause they believe he would be a great leader and bring change to many of the problems facing America. Even though they give way to much credit to the power of the Office he holds

So God... even if many Atheist knew God existed. The truth is they still wouldn't believe in him. For example, let's say God was standing next to you right now (If you're a believer technically you already think this). Now if you're a non-believer you may have questions. If God wanted you to believe in him, you would ask, just as you do any leader, what believing in him would mean for your present and your future? God (let's use the bible God, but this works for any of them) would say these are the rules I have set down, you live by these and your life will be better, just, moral, prosperous and fruitful.

In here, lies the problem with the Theist argument that they believe in God. Most of them don't live by the rules of a being they say is an ALL POWERFUL BEING, that is everywhere and sees everything. So then, when they don't live by such a beings rules, it's hard for me to believe that they truly know that God is real. They may want it to be so, they may believe but if I knew an all powerful being was aware of everything I did at all times and I have told this being that I will serve it or live by its edicts. Seems to me, I would be learning what those edicts are and making it a habit to live by them at all times.

It's like having a boss but you only follow some of his rules when you like them or think they are socially acceptable. What boss would put up with that?

Now for the Atheist, this is also a problem, because let's say this God, that he knows is real. Has policies, rules and a plan that you don't agree with. Should I do as he commands simply because everyone else believes in him and he is All POWERFUL. Or should I do what I know is right, even if it may only be right for me and say no? Because I do not believe in you.

Now obviously most people would do what such a powerful being commands simply out of fear. Hence the term "God-fearing people", so I imagine if God was standing right next to many Atheist they would become active participates quickly, though this activity still doesn't mean they believe in God. They just believe in staying alive, survival against a force far more stronger than they are.

My point is that believing in God is akin to believing in any Leader. And when a Leader puts forth rules of "morality, justice, law, daily life, relationships, spirituality, religion, and community". That leader has to have a vision that the person can believe in. If the person can't, then why would they believe in that Leader?



Now theist would say God has given a perfect vision. However Atheist would say, reading the first half the bible that is simply not true. Now a Christian would say that the second half is what is important now. (Yet they tend to favor some of the rules in the first half. This situation automatically cancels it's own argument.)


Now Jesus as a Leader believed different things than Yahweh did in the beginning of the Bible. Some of the laws of God do work with Jesus' teachings... many do not. One of the confusing things for Atheist is that when many Christians say God, they combine these two entities, making it hard to accept a belief in either cause they contradict each other. God said kill everyone in Jericho, every animal. Yet Jesus said non-violence no matter what, he died to prove that point.

Now I believe when God created his rule do not kill, he meant that the Chosen People were not to kill one another. God had no problem with them killing others. They weren't his people so why would he care. However, people try to tell you that God loves everyone but actions say he loves those that have a covenant with him.

Now Jesus completely contradicts that, a non-violent stance even when A Roman is whipping the skin off of you (thank you, Mel Gibson I will never forget that image, Passion of the Christ) means he loves everyone. One of his fellow Jews comes out of the crowd as he is carrying the cross and says, they would help him they would fight. What does he say, he says, NO! Holy Crap, now if that isn't believing in what you preach I don't know what is. But here is the problem again, an Atheist may say Jesus teaching are great. I can live by the idea of non-violence but I can't believe in God because he doesn't believe in non-violence, and I don't want to believe Jesus is a God or even divine.


So in that instance, an Atheist may follow the philosophy of Christ: helping the poor, non-violence, perhaps even forsaking material wealth, but that doesn't mean they believe in Christ but rather believe that his message was right.



Theist say to Atheist all the time "What if you're wrong?" Honestly, I think A Theist should be far more afraid of God being real than an Atheist. Think about it this way. Say you had a king, and he passed rules of the land. Then one day you and another person came before this king. You bow to him believing him to be your king, and worship him, and praise him every weekend, or when you can. You follow some of his rules but not all. You may even break his rules sometimes, but hey "Nobody is perfect, right?"

Now this other bloke is standing there before this king. However, he doesn't recognize him as his king. He doesn't live by the rules the king set, however many of the rules he does live by are the same. He does not worship, he does not praise and does not pretend to follow this king. If he breaks the Kings rules, it does not matter they are not his rules, however, he may have similar rules that he does live by.
Now they both are before this king. Now this king may punish the non-believer for not accepting his ways when he lives on his lands. This may or may not be just depending on the character, and actions of that individual. However, the king, will and must punish the believer. He has no choice, this person has given a vow, oath whatever it may be that he will live by the king's laws, serve him, and worship him.

Now using the Bible as an example but again this works with most authority entities in history. They don't accept the "We all aren't perfect excuse." That may work among the commoners but that king is going to punish the believer, harshly, and the king is within his right to. You chose that way of life.


In closing believing in a God, a person, or whatever is not the same as knowing it exist. Knowing someone exist does not mean you have to believe in them. One should believe in a God, person, whatever because that being has presently a vision that will do better, and make progress for the person and the community they belong to.

Some of the rules created five thousand years ago still have credence today. After all human behavior hasn't changed that much. However human understanding has changed a great deal since then, and many of the laws of any religion simply do not hold true and should be discarded.

However here is the Greatest problem with this. An Atheist would say, yes let's keep the ones that make sense and rid ourselves of the ones that our new understanding says are not valid.

A believer a true believer cannot do this. In fact, I don't think they should. You see if you believe your all powerful being has given you these rules, then only that all powerful being can change them. If people change them then they are saying by their actions they don't believe. In such a situation compromise is possible.

For a few hundred years there have been many compromises, most gradual changing what many believers believed. It seems now the argument has come to a point where many say that most of the rules of religions should be done away with, including believing in God. On the other side they want to bring back more of the rules, at least in social settings, on a grander scale in politics. Neither argument will be able to succeed.

Atheists let the people believe in their God. Theists do not force the laws of your God, the ones you accept, on others. This simple thing brings balance, that allows for that compromise. Anything else is vanity on both sides.

Things WRONG With AMERICA

SENATE CORRUPTION

It's obvious that the ones with money own congress, especially the senate. Simple solution, it must be made illegal for congress to take money or at least large sums from corporations. It should be made a rule that only US citizens can give money to their representatives.
Of course the problem of the rich being about to buy congress is still present with this system but at least it will be their personal money and not the money of what is usually a more lucrative corporation.
Perhaps there should be a limit to how much individuals can give as well.
Yes it is a free country but that doesn't mean that one is free to steal an election or a nation or state policy.
There has to be limits and regulation to protect the whole, You know CHECKS AND BALANCES.

Things WRONG With AMERICA

I've decided to write short analyzes on the practices, policies, and programs I think need to be changed, reformed or completely done with in the United States of America. However I'm not naive enough to believe a profit based society like the one in the US will completely change for the better of all it's citizens, but I do believe that many things can change for better opportunities of all it's citizens.

I won't focus much, if at all on silly social arguments, for example, to much sex in media or lack of, or too much religion. I find these arguments are used more by people that either have very little understanding, are trying to distract or are simply focused on a small tree in a very large regional forest.

I will attempt to point out a the problem, and then give a simple solution. However I will not even pretend I'm an expert. Only a guy with a bit of insight.

POLLUTION DEBT

When watching these films about food, soil, and water. One thing comes up over and over again, POLLUTION. I don't understand people, especially people that want, or have children. I would think these people would most agree about the destructive properties and plague that is pollution.

When I watch the news I see these republican types that talk about economic debt. What about POLLUTION DEBT? They seem to not think of this. In fact these same people want to deregulate laws on these corporations that create this pollution. They say things like the market will make these corporations do the right thing. THIS IS BULLSHIT. Simple reasoning, if you eat chicken, and the chemicals in it accumulate slowly in your body. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSE TO KNOW THIS? You would eat this chicken merrily and never know. If you are living on top of chemical waste, or it is in the air from a factory. How are you suppose to know that the chemicals are slowly accumulating inside of you? How are you suppose to test the ground, the air, the water? That is the job of the government, to PROTECT THE CITIZENSHIP.

Corporation will get away with what ever they can. They don't do what is right. They do what is profitable. The people that say, "the market will rectify things". They make it seem as if the corporations are doing things that are out right destructive. So people well see this and stop buying their products. Problem solved. The problems what they do are not outright. They do things that slowly harm. Things you may not see or have to deal with. Things you wouldn't know about unless you study it or live in the area of the problem.

The corporation is about profit. It is suppose to be the job of the citizens to demand that corporations are responsible for what they do. The consumer will not demand this, the consumer wants the convenience and the cheap products at any cost. Are you a citizen, or a consumer? You can be both as long as you are citizen first.

POLLUTION DEBT is far worse than economic debt. We are seeing the events in small areas here and there in America. From waste in the soil, in the water, in the air. Look up hydraulic fracturing or frakking, see what Dick Cheney and his crony politicians have unleashed on many places in America. How he has opened up land that was once protected land, land designated to be owned by all AMERICAN CITIZENS, to be drilled and polluted. If that wasn't bad enough he also made it so these gas companies are not beholden to many environmental laws. Yes Halliburton is one of these companies, is that really a surprise anymore. It's disgusting.

Ronald Reagan the "genius" he was. Allowed for huge deregulation of environmental laws. He set it up so many rivers, and places can be polluted by corporations. One of those rivers is the Potomac River. This is the river that gives the D.C. area it's water. He basically allowed for the river that gave him his drinking water, to be polluted, now how smart is that. If that doesn't show how short sighted this man was, nothing will convince. The funny thing is many of the environmental laws Reagan took away were put in place by President Nixon. Nixon will go down as a "crook" and Reagan is considered a "hero", this is insane to me.

When ever I hear people talk about economic debt yet seem to not care about it. Many help pollution waste to prosper by being on the side of deregulation. When I hear them say, "Our kids will be paying this economic debt". I sit in disgust thinking, what about the waste your children will deal with in the soil, in the air, in the water, The WATER.

Economic debt seems trivial in the face of the health concerns that will come from this pollution, and that is the least, minor case scenario. The worst case scenario is most of the drinking water becoming contaminated. WHAT WILL YOUR CHILDREN DRINK? But hey economic debt, yeah that is so much worse.

We are dealing with the pollution from the last hundred fifty years. But the worse of it has been since the chemical revolution in the forty and fifties. Whether you like it or not we are in a large chemical experiment. The sad thing is, the experiment isn't being done by a scientist to see how these chemicals, effect the environment, interacts, and accumulates in the environment, animals, and people. No this experiment is done by corporations. These corporations are simply hoping that they can make as much money as possible before any really negative affects come to be learned. And even if it does, it won't matter cause the law says the people would have to show a direct cause and effect from the corporations practices. So the corporations, now and then will be loving that slow accumulation, cause it's difficult to proof.

REGULATION is to protect us from pollution, and irresponsibility of corporations.

P.S. It seems to me that people say to their children that the convenience of their life now is more important than the pollution you will have to live with in the future. How selfish is this?

DIRT! The Movie

This is a documentary about the economic, political, and social effects of Dirt(TOP SOIL).

I have to admit watching this show I remember how much I take for granted what Dirt provides.

I like the story about the hummingbird and the wild fire. I wonder where the story originated from. "Be like the hummingbird against the fire, do the best you can."

I'm really interesting in Microbial fuel cells, that is really, really cool.

The thing I always have found fascinating is that many religions, mythologies and so on, tell stories of how man came from or was made out of clay. What makes it amazing is that so many cultures have come to this realization or believed this. Also now we know from science that biologically and chemically it is a very true statement.

Ronald Reagan

I plan to write a more description post about this, but for now I will say this.

RONALD REAGAN WAS AN IDIOT.
I say this because most of not all the things that Republican cite as the reason Ronald Reagan was a good president or did to make this country great. Were actually short sighted plans. Yes they did good for America in the immediate time (during his presidency) somewhat after. However for the long term, most of his policies we are dealing with the consequences of and will be for years to come.

(I'm sure someday a Republican will see this and say I need to show evidence of this and I will when I write my later post on this subject matter.)

American drug war

This documentary tells the history of the drug war and the absurdity of it.

The thing I find so illogical and stupid is the argument, "Let's legalize everything if you want to legalize drugs." It's an argument to appeal to one's base emotional reaction rather than the logical long term view.

I'm not African American

I know some will read the title and think I'm "self-hating" or a "uncle tom". However think about the title for a moment "African-American". Wouldn't someone from Africa be African American? Yes, I have ancestors from Africa but I'm not from Africa.

Why did the people who choose these Politically Correct terms decide on African-American? Is it because of heritage? Well heritage is based on blood and culture. Most people that have been here in America. That are of descent of the early indentured servants and then American slaves are of mixed heritage. I myself have many ancestors, of Native American and Irish decent. As well as English and perhaps French. So if this title is given based on heritage, based on blood then I'm not African-American.

Perhaps it's based on my culture. I find this weird because even though much of African culture has found a way to exist in our food, dance and language. We here of that descent have created our own "style" intermingled with the influence we gained of seeing and being around other mostly European cultures. This culture is mimicked in Africa (all over the world) as well. It holds up on it's own. So it's not really based on culture. Not to mention because slaves were stripped of most of their African traditions many of their traditions came from America, and their ways became American.

Is the term based on my skin color. If it's based on my skin color then it stupid. Point blank, no doubt about it, stupid. Wouldn't that make it an element, a symptom or blatant racist(true racism cause it is based on keeping someone in position simply because of skin color).

The truth is, I'm not African-American. I'm Black American or just American. I don't know why people can't accept Black American to be the "Politically Correct" term. White people in America don't mind being called White Americans. I've heard on television some like to be called European American. The first time I heard this I thought, "Are they from Europe?" Yet, when you hear people call themselves African-American the first thought people have isn't "Are they from Africa?" It's as if there is this latent thought that no matter how long black people are in America they will always be from Africa. I really don't like this title.

I'm Black American or American. African Americans are from Africa. People always say America is a "Melting Pot" yet they try to put those who are "living melting pots" into these narrow minded, small boxes. If it's easier just say I'm American, after all for many in the world this means, "mixed heritage".