The BART killing

I have been trying to keep the start of the new year on this blog light with video game reviews and silly articles. I have avoided discussing the conflict in the middle east even though that is the most significant international news right now.

But the riots of last night and the, execution style, police killing of Oscar Grant III are too much to ignore. These are very much subjects which we at The Fringe Element are concerned with. I'll start with the widely viewed video.




I don't know much of the story but people attribute Officer Johannes Mehserle's apparent shock to his mistakenly using his firearm when he intended to use his tazer. I am not sure how this is much better. As you can probably guess from previous articles, we here at The Fringe Element don't approve of liberal use of tazers by police, considering them to be a substitute for lethal force only. Whereas countless news stories indicate that police around the country treat this otherwise useful device as a shortcut to incapacitate any person the officer finds inconvenient to deal with.

In this case the use of a tazer would have been substantially less likely to cause death. I suppose that difference in outcome is supposed to mitigate the severity of the actions of the officer in this case in the minds of some people. But again, I don't consider a tazer to be non-lethal force. Neither do its proponents who call such devices "less lethal." In the same category as rubber bullets. The idea is to incapacitate with sufficient force to be sure to incapacitate with a single use. In many cases, the requisite amount of force to do so with such certainty is enough to kill. Again, I am not arguing against the use of tazers, I am arguing that people at large, and particularly the police, need to stop thinking of using a tazer as less serious than using a firearm.

A Tale of 2 Film Buffs

I love movies and watch them often. I have a friend, we'll call her Pear, who also loves movies. We sometimes watch the movies we get with each other, sometimes not. Neither of us has an extensive DVD or, god forbid, VHS collection. We watch so many, that it would be ridiculous to purchase every movie we want to see. Rent? Oh no, no. Pear, as far as I know, has not rented a movie in what may be years. I will occasionally rent one, but it is usually if options are limited. No, Pear and I watch all of our movies for free, essentially.

The fact that my font name is Bloated Nemesis and this is a blog, you could probably make an assumption that I download movies from the log cabin. Well, you would be partially correct, son. That used to be the way to watch movies in the Bauman Manor living room. Downloading has a couple of significant draw backs. The most relevant to this post is the concept that the downloader now has a copy of it. They can spread this copy around as if it is their own. The downloader can become a distributor. Though, I really have no problem with that, I hear there are some rich, fat, selfish dudes in Hollywood who seem pissed about that possibility.

No, the preferred way to view flicks in the Bauman Manor is streaming. It is easy. It is quick. It isn't always reliable. However, it is beautiful. After I watched Bad Lieutenent last week, I could not distribute it to others. I can point someone towards to the site I watched it with, but that is about it. Essentially, it is being broadcast using the log cabin. Now granted, if we applied FCC laws to the peeps who are broadcasting it, they would be shut down.

Pretend it is 1945, and we all love radio. I'm scrolling through the stations and I stumble upon a station I have never heard before. It turns out some rogue electronics nerds with resources set up a tower and started broadcasting with no FCC authorization. Well, those rogue nerds would get in trouble when they were caught. However, those of us who listened to the station would not have legal problems.

So, one of our two film buffs uses log cabin streaming. Well, what does our friend Pear do? She goes to the library. You know, the public library, or that big ass building downtown that has all of the books and homeless people. Ring a bell? Pear watches a lot of movies, all for free. (Well, I suppose technically tax dollars factor in it, but we are working on the individual consumer level right now.) That is completely legal. Shit, you are considered a "good citizen" if you use libraries. Well, it is a slight surprise to some people that libraries often have movies. Lots of them. Good ones, too. Often, many of the same ones you can get from the log cabin. When Pear gets movies from the library, she does not get to keep them. There is a limited time period in which that movie is "hers."

So, in recap. Pear and I both watch a lot of movies. We watch them for free. We have a huge selection to choose from. We have a limited time period in which the movie is "ours." Shit, libraries and streaming both have an unreliability to them. (Even if Pear knows the library has a movie, they may not have it available at that time. When I stream, I often run into server problems or bad copies.) Seems like borrowing media from a library and streaming off of the log cabin are pretty comparable to me.

So, I was just wondering, if the log cabin is the future of information dissemination, and libraries are the past, why is there not a similar legal option on the log cabin to libraries?

Oh yeah, I remember. The log cabin is a new frontier, much like America was up until 100 years ago. The corporations are trying to make the log cabin completely profit driven, and they want to squash anything that is more utopian than them.

Blood Diamonds

It may be beating a dead horse to talk about blood diamonds except people are still buying them, the artifical custom of the diamond engagement ring persists, and the average person does not feel blinded by rage when they see a commercial for diamonds. Also, you may be wondering what sparked this posting. I didn't just see the movie Blood Diamond and have my eyes opened to this tragedy and rush out to tell the ten people who accidentally come to this blog every day. I have been pissed about this injustice since I was a little high school hoodlum but I recently stumbled on my notes from last summer regarding this topic and I stumbled on this article on Fark.

That article recounts an older story regarding how the value of diamonds was artificially inflated and bullshit symbolism was imbued into the diamond. It recounts how a common stone with little intrinsic value was kept from the market in order to artificially create a low supply while some clever advertisers associated the diamond with eternity and love and forced every man in western society from then on to spend two months salary on a worthless crystal of carbon for fear of sending the wrong message to the woman he loves. Fortunately, for their trouble, those advertisers will have to crouch in the desert of sodomites for all eternity. Unfortunately love isn't enough to overcome the demands of consumerism in our culture, or informed women who truly loved their future husbands would insist on not wearing murder on their hands. They would not be able to look at their enggement ring and see the love of their husband but would instead witness blood flowing from the stone on their ring, the blood of the children who died in the mines and the men and women who were murdered when a new militia came and took over the mine.

Remember those anti-drug adds just after 9-11 where the Bush administration and John Ashcroft were trying to capitalize on nationalism in the war on drugs? They implied a connection within the drugs trade wherein money American teenagers spent on pot went into the coffers of the terrorists who had attacked us. The same is true of the diamond trade. If you buy diamonds, you are putting money into Osama Bin Laden's pockets.

What about the Kimberly process you ask? What are you some lobbyist for the diamond industry? For the rest of you, the Kimberly process is the method the diamond industry created to pretend they were doing something about blood diamonds as a public relations scheme. The process is entirely voluntary, completely self-administered with no accountability, and there are large financial disincentives to poor african countries to conform rigorously to the process's own loose guidelines. Given the fact that emeralds and rubies come from conflict ridden regions in Colombia and Burma respectively, and the gem industry turns a blind eye to the suffering inflicted on people in those areas, it is unsuprising that their own method of self monitoring the origins of diamonds is far from robust. This is what it looks like when evil people try to do good but can't stop thinking of their own greed.

Anyone else have that age old feeling of disenfranchisement?

I was perusing the Cnn.com, as part of my regular late night masochism session, looking for some clues as to what is going on with the electorate. How come the same pundits who are so horribly wrong about policy are surprisingly correct when it comes to predicting elections? As a vehement Ron Pauloholic I was optimistically expecting well above 10% from Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary. (By the way, can we strip them of their state motto: Live Free or Die because no one truly free would vote for Hilary Clinton, well maybe as a joke?) The acceptable Jack Cafferty echoed that idea before the primary on CNN, though none of his co-workers agreed. As we all know, as well read (five points to anyone who coins a new term to replace "well read" in regards to getting their news from Youtube and Log Cabin videos) politicos, Ron Paul did not even hit 10% in New Hampshire, and has done similarly or worse since, in Wyoming and Michigan. On CNN.com they have some exit polls from Michigan, and one of them asked the voter, who they think is the candidate that will best bring much needed change. Then they broke down who those people voted for. For example, 28% of Republican voters thought John McCain will best bring about much needed change, and 88% of those people voted for McCain. Well, 12% of Michigan Republican primary voters thought Ron Paul would best bring about much needed change (that figure alone angers me for being low.) However, only 48% of those people voted for him. In summary, 6% of the Michigan Republican primary electorate thought that Ron Paul would be the best person to change this country for the better, but decided not to vote for him. Motherwhat? YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME INSANE!

At one time in our lives we have all either supported a "fringe" candidate, or knew someone who did. If you are one of the people who supported the "fringe" candidate, then you heard, almost every time you tried to proselytize for your boy, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." If you are not someone who supported a "fringe" candiddate, then you are that asshole who said, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." Yet they rarely attack that candidate on the issues, on hizzer policy and cred, street or otherwise. I figure this is either because they agree with the candidate but are afraid to vote for himmer, like our Michigan 6%, or they are uninformed of him, a number likely much higher than 6%.
I was watching a fall 2000 Charlie Rose episode on Youtube that had a number of political experts analyzing the first Gore-Bush debate from that election. A couple times they referenced a poll that asked about people's impressions of the candidates, and seemingly used it as evidence of what the candidate actually is. I thin I only explicitly noticed it because I was able to look at these talking heads with a very 20/20 perspective. However, this is an hourly occurrence on every news network, newspaper front page...and most blogs, for that matter. Just because a poll says most people THINK a candidate is something, does not make him so. And for the media to spin in that way, makes it not only self-fulfilling but that number can increase like a snowball, and then simply becomes fact. It is circular logic that doesn't even have a factual base to turn on itself.

There are hundreds of way the propaganda machine, sorry, "media", distorts and hides the truth. There are many ways in which it, eh...for lack of a better word, BRAINWASHES people into voting a certain way. As bad as it is that there are elections being rigged at the polls, after the polls, and before the polls, by not allowing people to vote, elections are also being stolen through propaganda. Remember, why steal something forcefully or stealthily when you can just trick someone into giving it to you?