Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Justifying Government Authority

Justifying Government Authority
by Angela Smith, HEAL National Coordinator/Co-Founder

In order to promote and protect the liberty interests of all US citizens, regardless of age, gender, orientation, heritage, faith, or disability, we must respect each other's liberty on the same grounds.  This includes the liberty interests of vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and the disabled.

False imprisonment and kidnapping are federal offenses and prosecutable as such if the crime crosses state lines involving commerce.  Commerce involves the sale of goods or services.  Services include boarding schools, treatment centers, and all forms of segregated congregate care.  Kidnapping can be committed by force or fraud.  False advertising in sales materials may be enough to prove fraud.  Parents can be charged as co-conspirators and may be able to mitigate charges by claiming ignorance. 

Youth who are kidnapped and falsely imprisoned in such a fashion often distrust the government as believing this wouldn't be happening if it were illegal.  But, whether the victims of crime or perpetrators of crime know it is a crime, doesn't change the fact that it is a crime.  And, when victims of crime don't get justice, often they become activists and sometimes turn to crime themselves seeing that leadership involves criminal activity at "leadership academies".

So, I believe the most reasonable thing to do is have law enforcement raid every single youth facility that accepts youth, without a court order via due process, where the youth are held against their will to let youth know that heroes exist and the law is on their side.  Otherwise, I'm the voice of reason in the teen liberty movement and sometimes I hit a rough patch.  I always respect the law and expect it to be enforced particularly when individual liberty interests and national security are involved.

See, anyone raised believing people in authority get away with crime or don't have to obey the same rules or laws, may follow the example set by those in authority which is why we need to be virtuous and respect each other's liberty interests to avoid being hypocrites and criminals or inspiring others to become such.

Monday, December 10, 2018

Solution-Based Activism

Solution-Based Activism
by Angela Smith, HEAL National Coordinator/Co-Founder

I've been an activist arguably as long as I've lived and been aware of the need to exercise virtue over vice.  I co-founded HEAL in 2002 at the University of Washington.  Through my years as an activist and advocate to stop institutionalized abuse, I've learned that to be effective a movement must be solution-based.  Raising awareness about atrocities is not enough and does not result in solving problems.  We must, therefore, as activists, be willing to provide a solution or recommend a feasible and reasonable one based on empirical data with virtuous change to vicious circumstances being our end regardless of cause or issue.  In the United States, we can present solutions through private enterprise or public policy reform suggestions depending on best course for particular issue or cause. 

With the #MeToo movement, reporting crimes of harassment, rape, assault, battery, or the like is the number one and primary legal remedy available for justice.  This must be done in a timely manner so prosecution remains likely to succeed.  In the event there is not enough evidence for a conviction meeting the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then victims in such a situation may wish to join a support group or file a civil suit if there is enough evidence that it meets the civil standard of being a preponderance of evidence.  If there is not enough evidence to meet either the civil or criminal standard, one who makes such allegations against an individual may find themselves legally liable if unable to support their public statements to the satisfaction of the courts.

Depending on jurisdiction, and in New York specifically, you can press criminal charges under various statutes for the following: any unwanted forcible touching for personal gratification or to degrade or abuse the victim regardless of whether over or under clothes (TSA is guilty), any other unwanted physical contact such as pushing or hitting, physically threatening or menacing without making contact but placing one in fear of such and must involve threatening body language and be more than verbal, and unlawful imprisonment even if only briefly prevented from freedom of movement (as in blocking a door and not letting one leave).  So, if you've been a victim of such activity in the workplace or elsewhere, please report it to law enforcement immediately and press charges.  Doing so in a timely fashion is your best chance at justice. 

Now, the issue may be with getting more funding for particular law enforcement units so they can better investigate and more quickly solve crime.  You'll want to check your state's current funding of law enforcement, particularly special victims' units or the like and request more funding and personnel for that unit in the event there is a backlog of cases or the department is overwhelmed and under-funded.  In Orange County, California the department you would want to see expanded and funded more is Special Victims Detail.  Right now, there are eleven total officers in that department with a known 5,000 sex offenders living in the county.  So, it would seem demanding more funding and officers to handle the caseload would be the best solution coupled with timely reporting of such crimes regardless of where the crime may have occurred or the parties involved.

This is just one example of how to focus on solutions in activism and I hope the #MeToo movement and all victims of crime report it in time for justice to be feasible.


Sources:


Thursday, December 6, 2018

Sadism in Modern Human Development and Social Organization


Sadism in Modern Human Development and Social Organization
by Angela Smith, HEAL National Coordinator/Co-Founder

Do you wish for a world without freedom, reason, and mutual respect for all humankind?  Do you demand freedom, reason, and respect from others?  If you answered "yes" to both questions, then there is a flaw in your reasoning and you need to work on that to avoid hypocrisy and misunderstanding.

People tend to follow examples set for them by their primary caregivers in childhood and authority figures in adulthood.  So, regardless of whether your position in all relationships, business or personal, is "Do as I say, not as I do", your own actions or "doing" are naturally to be adopted by those that see you as an authority on how to live or achieve leadership positions.  If your actions should not be adopted by everyone else, you do not belong in a leadership position.  If your actions should be adopted by everyone else, then, absolutely others may benefit from the example you've set.  And, a job worth doing is worth doing well, including leading by example. 

Now, the issue we are facing in the 21st century boils down to this, current trends in human development and social organization are towards imposing ignorance while focusing on emotional stimuli to manipulate and control the majority while the law remains steadfastly in position to protect freedom by requiring reasonable and well-reasoned decisions that exhibit mutual respect for fellow citizens.  Our education and employment training methodologies result in fear of reason, rejection or fear of freedom (i.e. when I suggest an improvement I am dismissed or scolded), and loss of respect for self and others over time with fear being the conditioned response to authority.  This leads to individuals distrusting authority or government resulting in further exploitation and abuse where the law would intervene if victims were not conditioned to fear rather than trust the government.

Since manipulative and aversive behavioral controls are currently being widely used in public and private education settings, the youth so subjected are being conditioned to be subservient and obedient to handlers or perceived authority figures.  This puts them at risk of exploitation, including sexual abuses that go unreported out of fear.  They are also discouraged from reasoning as such may lead to questioning authority.  So, by promoting such conditioning we are as a result ending up with individuals afraid to think for themselves out of fear of punishment while the law demands they take full responsibility and treats their actions as autonomous.  It would seem that on its face all of this is inherently unjust and unfair and that the spirit of the law bends towards freedom which is why our education, human development, and social organization should promote and encourage that, not set everyone up for failure.  And then, those claiming leadership, engaging in intellectual dishonesty, show examples of those who somehow manage to overcome such horrifying conditions to claim that it isn't the system, it is the exceptionalism of the individual. 

Granted, everyone has different talents, skills, and flaws.  And, we'd all like to be accepted based on our individual abilities and contributions to society as they may be.  We might achieve a utopia of sorts if we could embrace universal ethical standards while refraining from intellectual dishonesty.  But, such is arguably unrealistic.  However, it is possible and my PapaSam would say, "If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything." 

It seems to me that for the sake of, what I believe are American values, we should promote justice and liberty for all.  And, that such requires we not have education or training systems that condition our fellow citizens to respond solely to emotional stimuli, shut down or fear reason, and then blame them for not being reasonable so we can send them to prison where slavery is still legal under the constitution. 

Can we reform the schools and employee training systems so that we encourage reason and the development of such over basic animal-training methods of reward and punishment depending on whether someone pleases the "trainer"/"authority figure"?  If not, that's the problem most adversely affecting the quality of life and upward mobility for the majority of Americans right now and until it is solved, everything will continue to suck.

Please see the free e-books "It's All The Rage" (Particularly chapter 2, please see page 9 regarding what is done with exceptionally intelligent children) and "Activism 101: How to Succeed In Peaceful Revolution" available via hyperlink pdf at http://www.beyondbusiness.net.  And, you may also find the Congressional Hearing report of interest available here: http://www.healreport.tv/1974congressbehaviormod.pdf
 
This is the bottom line and why everyone is so frustrated with each other and overly emotional about it instead of reasoning things out and actually solving problems.  When you try to stop people from questioning your authority and beat them, drug them, and demand obedience while claiming they are fully responsible for everything they do and should reasonably know better, you are the problem.  Pick a lane.  Lead by example. And, if people act erratic or unstable as a result of living under such conditions, don't create an entire new field to label and control them under the guise of healthcare, address the root cause which is poor social organization and failed human development strategies that have promoted totalitarian authoritarianism in a free country.  Fight for freedom!  HEAL's fighting for freedom and we're with you if you are too!

Monday, December 3, 2018

Debate and Dialogue

Debate and Dialogue
by Angela Smith, HEAL National Coordinator/Co-Founder

For the purposes of helping to further the cause of reasonable discussion on controversial issues, this particular article will be looking at abortion and climate change.  With abortion, I'll be revisiting and adding commentary regarding the Abortion Debate between Kelsey Hazzard and Peggy Loonan hosted by The HEAL Report and reviewed in an earlier post found here: http://heal-online.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-abortion-debate.html.  Regarding climate change, I'll be providing information on arguably deceptive marketing practices regarding the environmental benefits of available fuels for automobiles.  It is my sincere hope that this commentary aids all reasonable people in having a thoughtful and productive discussion regarding how to resolve some of the issues raised when meeting with apparent adversaries or zealots.

In the Hazzard v. Loonan debate, I found both made some compelling arguments for each side of the abortion issue.  However, I also found evidence of ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty in regards to certain points made by both sides.  I will leave it up to you to decide whether to give the benefit of the doubt and believe the issue was more with ignorance than intellectual dishonesty on the part of the debate participants.

Hazzard argued during the debate that animal welfare laws are stronger than the laws protecting the unborn.  The issue here is that it is legal to kill animals for food, sport, and because they've become a nuisance or inconvenient in the United States.  Even in the case of a healthy family pet, the owner can have the pet euthanized.  And, that's a born animal.  See: http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/refusing-euthanize-healthy-pet  Even if a vet refuses, the article shows that an owner can still legally take the pet to another vet to have their healthy but no longer convenient pet euthanized.  In addition, another example is that dogs can be forcibly given abortions at the mercy of their owner's whims.  See: https://breedingbusiness.com/dog-abortion/  So, both unborn and born animals are not better protected than unborn and born humans in the United States.

A question I would ask Pro Lifers is: Given the fact that natural spontaneous miscarriages occur and Vanishing Twin Syndrome exists, both which show nature sometimes aborts whether the mother wants it or not, why is it okay or accepted if unplanned and not okay if intentionally scheduled?  (For information on Vanishing Twin Syndrome, see: http://americanpregnancy.org/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/)

Loonan argued during the debate that fetal pain could not be proven and therefore was not something she considers when discussing abortion.  She mentioned that they couldn't be asked if they feel pain so there is no way to know if they do without that confirmation.  There were a few issues with this and one is that there are mute people, such as Helen Keller historically, that I believe all would agree was able to feel pain.  So, being unable to verbalize a confirmation to such a question is not indicative or conclusive regarding whether pain is possible or actual.  In addition, nonhuman animals cannot verbally be asked if they feel pain and respond, but, everyone would likely agree animals are capable of feeling pain even if unable to verbalize it.  Regardless, the science shows that at 26 weeks a fetus can feel everything and they begin feeling at 23-25 weeks.  So, I'm going with the scientific studies on this one and therefore fully support a ban on abortion after 24 weeks.  I'd prefer it to be at 20-22 weeks just to be sure the fetus felt no pain as a result of the procedure, but, I think the 24 week ban is a compromise some seem to feel necessary.  Source on Fetal Pain Studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

A question I would ask a Pro Choicer is: Would you support a ban, similar to the ban in the Netherlands, on abortions after 24 weeks gestation, knowing fetuses can feel pain as early as 23 weeks, sometimes sooner, but fully feel everything by 26 weeks gestation?  (See original blog post linked in first paragraph above for source on Netherlands.)

I hope everyone enjoys those conversations.  Now, the truth is that we have three options to fuel our motor vehicles right now.  Those options are coal, fracked gas, and gasoline.  The electric car is powered by coal.  Hydrogen Fuel Cells are made with natural gas from fracking.  Gasoline is from traditional oil drilling and refining.  Coal is by far the dirtiest of the three options according to Obama's EPA.  So, the electric car appears to be twice as bad for the environment as a traditional gas-powered car based on Co2 emissions of power source.  Hydrogen Fuel Cells are made from natural gas and emit slightly less Co2 emissions in use than traditional gas when used.  However, it becomes an issue on whether traditional drilling and gas is better or worse for the environment than fracked natural gas.  Do you know?  If not, maybe find a real solution to fueling cars and electricity rather than introducing alternatives while hyping claims that they are far more environmentally friendly than competitors.  The electric car powered by coal, appears to be the most misleading but was sweet to think people just don't know where the electricity comes from even after the hit show "The Office".

Sources for Climate Change and Automobiles:





Hoping this is helpful to everyone in pursuing more thoughtful dialogue and more honest debate.