Soldiers Guarding Poppies Not Rosa Parks

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for your help with the clarification Wingspan.

Let me start by saying that the idea of Blogs inside a forum is still somewhat experimental. What we've had so far has been working pretty well, and the complaints have been fairly minimal. But that doesn't mean that we can't improve what we're doing, and I welcome input. I would prefer to have this discussion in another location, but since the issue was brought up here, I don't mind answering it.

Let me start with the Blog Forum Rules which are posted at the top of this forum with the title: "Blog Forum Rules - PLEASE READ FIRST":

Blog Forum Rules

This forum is for Blogs related to the sport of Hang Gliding (please start non-hang gliding blogs in the Free Speech Zone).

Each Blog is a topic started by an individual and moderated by that same individual.

The first post in each Blog topic must state the purpose and rules of that Blog. Please abide by these rules.

If the Blog rules for a topic don't invite other people to post, then please don't post if you're not the person who started the Blog.

Any posts that a Blog creator wishes to have removed will be moved to the "Removed Posts" topic inside this Blog forum.

Bloggers, please contact me by Personal Message (PM) if you want any posts removed from your Blog topics.

Blogs may be moved to the Free Speech Zone if they are judged to be unrelated to hang gliding or if they are judged to be taking advantage of these blogging rules to make statements about other people without giving them a chance to reply.

Thanks for everyone's cooperation!!    

Those rules make it pretty clear. The problem is that many people have not been following those rules, and I have not enforced them.

For example, the 3rd rule states that the first post of any Blog topic must state the purpose and rules of that Blog. That's been violated by a number of blogs (including this one), and I haven't made a fuss about it. The same is true of the 4th rule and this topic. Free's opening post did not invite others to post in his Blog, yet here we are. We're all in violation of that rule, and I was the first. In fact, I noted in my first post that Free's Blog was in violation of the first rule (hang gliding topics only), but I said I didn't mind allowing him one "non-hang gliding" topic (one per person). So the Blog continued with at least 3 rule violations and no complaints about any of them.

Since the Blog Forum is somewhat of an experiment, I've been letting things evolve to see what would work and what would not. I've also been giving it more thought as actual situations arise (as has happened with Rick's blog and now this one). That prompted me to make this recent post which deviates a bit from the previous rules by potentially restricting the removal of posts to those which break the Blogger's stated rules (and not just any post the Blogger wanted to have removed):

Under the current Blog Forum rules, a Blog originator might put this in his first post:

    BLOG RULES:
      1. I reserve the right to remove any post that I feel is dishonest.

Then, if he or she finds a post that they think is dishonest, they can use the "Report" button to flag the post. The Report button gives them a chance to explain what the report is about, and they might say:

     "Please remove this post because I feel it is dishonest and violates rule number 1 in my first post."

If I (eventually "we") feel that the rule was indeed broken, I'll move the post to the "Removed Posts" topic where it will remain until there is a review by the Board (if requested).

That's the current plan, and any thoughtful comments are welcome.

According to the original - and still current - rules, my comment that posts must violate a Blogger's stated rules is incorrect. So right now, a Blogger can request removal of any post and it will be honored. However, after some hindsight, I think the proposed difference (which requires Bloggers to state rules and also requires some third party judgement about whether rules are broken) might be a better approach, and I think it's is a good topic for discussion.

Now that change to the rules (if adopted) does introduce a matter of judgement into the process. Let's say that a Blogger stated a rule that "profanity" is not allowed, and someone posted using the word "dang". Under the original rules, if the blogger wanted that post removed, it would be removed. Under the rules I've suggested, someone has to make a judgement call as to whether that's a violation of the Blogger's rules or not. I am generally inclined to allow the Blogger to make that decision (which is what the original - and still current - rules provide), but then that could be abused to allow the Blogger to remove posts that he/she just didn't like without review. That's why I think a review process might be warranted. If we have a review process, then the rules posted by each Blogger would need to be clear enough that they could be reasonably interpreted by a moderator and/or review board. The less clear the rules, the more judgement is required by the moderator/board. That's what Brian is basically pointing out here:

So Free makes the rules and you determine if they're broken.

One of the advantages of the revised approach is increased flexibility. If some people still want absolute control of their Blog (as provided by the current rules), then they can define very explicit rules in their Blog. The clearest of those explicit rules is:

      "No other posts allowed".

I can enforce that one very easily. But it doesn't allow much participation. The next clearest rule is:

      "I (the blogger) have the final say on what is allowed and what is not."

That's pretty much what we have now according to the original rules. In that case, I will simply remove any post requested by the Blogger - no questions asked. Of course, there may not be many people wanting to post to a topic where the Blogger can unilaterally remove any post without any justification. But if that's what a Blogger wants, then they're free to do it. But my proposed change would require that rule to be clearly stated so people know what they're getting into when they participate in such a Blog discussion.

I hope that explains the policies as they have evolved. As I mentioned above, I welcome constructive input as to how we can run a Blog forum that's fair to everyone.

[brianscharp]

Yes thanks. I was confused by this.

If I (eventually "we") feel that the rule was indeed broken, I'll move the post...

[Bob Kuczewski]

Yes thanks. I was confused by this.

If I (eventually "we") feel that the rule was indeed broken, I'll move the post...

I'm sorry for any confusion, and I take responsibility for it. You're witnessing the "Constitutional Convention" of the US Hawks as it evolves, and many of the "rules" are just there to give us some amount of structure ... as we modify them.

[Free]

Ok, I can't remember actually reading the rules about posting in the blog section. My bad. Move it as you like, Bob.

Sorry to have caused any friction over the contents of this discussion which only argues that yes, the military industrial complex is involved in promoting/protecting illegal drug trade, hence the obvious prison planet insanity of "war on drugs" being waged against the very people that are supposed to be protected by the military industrial complex, and of whom they also are paying for in taxes.

The 'war on drugs' is a horrible prison planet scam that ships the drugs in and then incarcerates (for profit) those unwary enough to be caught up in this high level scam.

So far, I see no recognition that what I've said here has made any impact on the programming/indoctrination mindset of anyone that has commented.
In failure to get the basic/simple point across about what is happening is a testament to how far we have descended down the rabbit hole.
Basic information like this, knowledge about what and who we are, how we operate, are foundational defects in our collective psyche.

If we don't know where we are, we can't make good decisions about where we are going.
Those that don't agree with what I'm scribbling or haven't gone to the trouble to discredit what I'm saying with facts that state otherwise, shame on you for putting it down. Apologize to your children and their children for being ignorant of things that affect their lives adversely. There is no reason to remain ignorant sheep, other than to allow the country to continue it's descent into the distopic hell that our social engineering puppet masters have planned for us.

The people that willingly go along with this are the true sock puppets and they don't even know it.
Forcing different thoughts, ideas and information into separate little boxes within boxes is the puppet master's blueprint.

Political correctness is the gelding of our individualism. It's putting us in a box and slapping our hands when we stray over our delineated 'correctness' lines. Free thought is not free anymore. Certain words are taboo and anyone that suggest that hey, there is a possibility that two people may have at one time in history been complicit in acts that steal advantage from willing or unwitting targets for self-gain, greed and power, heaven forbid!
Conspiracy theorist!

The indoctrination (brainwashing) kicks in.
More boxes within boxes are built.
Group think becomes tribal.
The hive mind rules.

We have been lied to, too many times. There are conspiracies.
We are purposefully being dumbed down. And it's working.

"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen." -----Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

http://www.whale.to/b/russell_h.html

[Bob Kuczewski]

Ok, I can't remember actually reading the rules about posting in the blog section. My bad. Move it as you like, Bob.

It's OK. I'm not trying to bust anyone. I'm just trying to get us pulling together to give us a viable alternative to U$HPA. Any help there is welcomed. As a compromise on this topic, how about if I move it to the Free Speech Zone and leave a link here in the Blog Forum so people can find it in both places?

The 'war on drugs' is a horrible prison planet scam that ships the drugs in and then incarcerates (for profit) those unwary enough to be caught up in this high level scam.

I understand that you don't like the war on drugs, but what about drug abuse itself? Do you see recreational drugs as a mechanism to "dumb down", pacify, and control large segments of our population?

In my opinion, these are some of your strongest arguments, and I agree with them:

If we don't know where we are, we can't make good decisions about where we are going.
  :
Political correctness is the gelding of our individualism.
  :
We have been lied to, too many times.
  :
We are purposefully being dumbed down. And it's working.

Does our current widespread recreational drug use help or hurt the situation?

[Free]

I understand that you don't like the war on drugs, but what about drug abuse itself? Do you see recreational drugs as a mechanism to "dumb down", pacify, and control large segments of our population?

I see pharmaceutical drugs, toxic water, chemicals/dyes in our food, GMO's and their attendant chemical support system of pesticides/herbicides, artificial hormones, vaccines and even overuse of antibiotics to name a few things I see as mechanism to "dumb down", pacify, and control large segments of the population.

I see recreational drugs as icing on the crap-cake above as a way to move a smaller segment of the population describe above into the soul shredder of the judicial/prison industrial system to be used as slave labor for global corporations while the public picks up the tab.

In my opinion, these are some of your strongest arguments, and I agree with them:

If we don't know where we are, we can't make good decisions about where we are going.

Ok, you agree. Now in my opinion, that's where you are.
You don't seem to be aware of the scope of the problem in general.
You were wrong in your original position because you started with a faulty understanding in what I was talking about.
You still haven't acknowledged this previous item of contention and your present position appears to be the same as before.
Those, that were based on sparse and faulty foundational understanding of what the "war on drugs" really is.

Garbage in, garbage out as they say in the computing world.
Like the war on global warming. .. They put garbage data into garbage computer models, tweak and manipulate the garbage outcome and spin the deception to all the dumbed down pacified do gooders that now want to wage war on the life giving atmospheric trace gas of carbon dioxide.

CO2 at .04% is now the great sky devil that is going to destroy the earth if we don't sacrifice ourselves to the great witchdoctor AlGore. Billion$,Trillion$ what does it matter right? We are saving the earth, right? ... well no, actually.

The proposed fix for this nonexistent problem will be imperceptibly effective, even if the whole basic premise was correct to begin with.
Which it doesn't appear to be. At least to anyone that really looks a bit deeper than most 'believers' actually have.

Most believers are operating on the emotional scale rather than the intellectual.
Most are indoctrinated (brainwashed) at an early age. Look up kindergarten and the Prussian model. It's all about programming supple little minds.
One generation is all it takes to "pacify" and dumb down a population. We're pretty much borderline Idiocracy as we speak.
There is hope. Not to be all doom and gloom.

All it takes is a small tipping point in people waking up, positive change can begin tomorrow.
When enough people are aware of all the lies and deceptions, it's all over.
The real power is in the people. That's exactly why they are dumbing us down and sucking our souls out with all the chemicals.
Diet, injections and injunctions, as Bertrand Russell wrote in 1953.

When did the vaccine schedule really get ramped up? 80's I believe. The autism explosion followed. Correlation is not causation.
The chemical/biological assault that is killing our kids runs the whole gamut. .. gee.. we don't know what's causing all these problems..
Problems that the same people making billions/trillions on treatments, just can't find an answer for... but send money and we'll keep looking into it.

I'll skip the next two agreements we have and the next is what I've written above.
It's true, but with hope.

We are purposefully being dumbed down. And it's working.

You Ask:

Does our current widespread recreational drug use help or hurt the situation?

Wrong question. The proper question is: Does our current long standing failure of the 'war on drugs' help or hurt the situation?

Obvious answer to anyone that realistically understands what is actually going on, is that the status quo corrupt system we've have had since Nixon is a total failure. Anyone that doesn't let their blind-side do their thinking for them can see this.
You know what they say, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Someone said that... and it's true.
Take it one further, you tell me, as I asked you before, how does it help the situation to throw some kid in jail to become a real criminal, because a bag of weed?
The war drugs destroys families and people far more than someone's recreational use of something the government ships in anyway.
I'll ask you, like you said of Tad Earickson: Can you ever admit you are wrong?
If so, is there any evidence of this? Example?

Oops.. there's the dinner bell!
Catch ya later!

[Bob Kuczewski]

You Ask:

Does our current widespread recreational drug use help or hurt the situation?

Wrong question. The proper question is: . . .

I'm sorry, but that was not the wrong question. It was exactly the question that I asked.

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. Here's how you say that:

      "That's not the question that I want to answer."

OK?

[Free]

You Ask:

Does our current widespread recreational drug use help or hurt the situation?

Wrong question. The proper question is: . . .

I'm sorry, but that was not the wrong question. It was exactly the question that I asked.

No Bob. The question you asked didn't address the original misassumption on your part that the war on drugs is anything good.
You are obviously asking the wrong question in order to shift the original issue, your false assumption, to something quite different.
It's the circular logic of someone that may have a background in say neural linguistic programming.
That is the case, right? You mentioned this before, or am I mistaken?

You addressed nothing I said. Did you even understand it?
It really feels like I am talking to a robot.

Tell us exactly how the war on drugs is a good thing to continue, because...
You know, the whole false assumption you had that started this whole thread.
I know it's impossible for you to do so. You can't even admit that the photo's (and a link) are real
and that you apparently had no clue, even though you asserted your unqualified opinion on the matter.
Then, you torture yourself on how to boot myself from the club to shut me up. You show no interest in hearing
how the Hawks can actually be something besides a cut out copy of U$HPA. Running a blog gets you no credibility for creating something
other than a blog. I see no intellectual curiosity and I see no creativity in building anything here other than a hierocracy of one.

You wonder why people would not want to take your phone calls. My reason is that I've been there and done that.
Unproductive hours on the phone that you can't remember. Well I do.
I learn from my mistakes and try not to repeat them.
This is impossible for you because you never make any mistakes, right?

Did you hear how the Saulk polio vaccine of my time was contaminated with cancer virus? Look up SV40 monkey virus.
They knew about it but still used it. You should at least know the history of the place you work.

[Bob Kuczewski]

It's the circular logic of someone that may have a background in say neural linguistic programming.
That is the case, right? You mentioned this before, or am I mistaken?

You addressed nothing I said. Did you even understand it?
It really feels like I am talking to a robot.

OK, you caught me. I'm really an advanced "military / industrial / big pharma" neural linguistic robot.

[Free]

Man Released after Months in Jail for Possession of Vitamins
Mikael Thalen | Infowars.com On February 16, 2015
http://www.infowars.com/man-released-after-months-in-jail-for-possession-of-vitamins/
A Minnesota man was released from jail this week after spending close to three months in custody for possession of vitamins.
The man, 31-year-old Joseph Burrell, was arrested last November after police claimed that a vitamin powder found in his vehicle was actually illegal amphetamines.

Charged with two counts of felony drug possession, Burrell was incarcerated on $250,000 bail while the substance awaited final testing at the state crime lab.
“I told the judge I couldn’t plead guilty to something I knew wasn’t a drug,” Burrell told the Mankato Free Press. “They set my bail at $250,000 for vitamins.” http://www.mankatofreepress.com/news/local_news/drug-charges-dismissed-it-really-was-vitamins/article_5bd3b8b8-b3bb-11e4-a86c-939946b09d9e.html
After spending weeks behind bars, Burrell was quietly released only days before his trial. Man Released after Months in Jail for Possession of Vitamins

“I had been sitting in the jail since November with my bail set at $250,000,” Burrell said. “Then, two days before trial, they dropped the charges and let me go.”

Lab analysis corroborated Burrell’s claims after the powder did in fact turn out to be mere vitamins, not speed, as officers had claimed.
Even more concerning, Burrell stated that police waited more than a month to send the evidence to the crime lab after his arrest.

Similarly, the crime lab also waited one month after testing the substance to return it back to prosecutors.
As deplorable as Burrell’s situation is, many have not fared as favorably.

A multi-year investigation into the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s crime lab by the Department of Justice uncovered rampant tampering of evidence.
Frederic Whitehurst, former supervisory special agent in the FBI crime lab for more than a decade, joined the Alex Jones show in 2010 to discuss the FBI’s long history of fabricating and altering evidence. Whitehurt blew the whistle in the 1990s and forced the agency to adopt new guidelines in order to ensure greater oversight.