August 31, 2007

More than Moore, more or less.

I recently acquired an illegal copy, fitting enough, of “America: Freedom to Fascism directed by Aaron Russo, “a documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.” Basically, this 2005 documentary brings to light some astonishing revelations, that apparently federal income tax and the filing of your 1040 every year is in actuality unconstitutional. The film first claims, then proves that there is actually no law requiring the American working class to pay a tax on their wages. Oddly, I came into possession of this ’05 film just days after the director’s death from cancer.

After a bit of research myself, there appears to be reasonable arguments on both sides, though more leaning towards Russo’s stance. Aaron Russo does (mostly) right everything that Michael Moore did wrong, including: more facts and less personal opinions, more interviews, and more informative, and uproots more than what the government is up to, but actually why. You won’t find Russo taking kids to K-Mart and asking employees that they take out the bullets that they legally sold to parents of a couple fucking morons. You won’t find Russo blaming Charlton Heston for school shootings, or pouring in gallons of bullshit feelings and opinions. Hell, Moore was even disapproved by Ray Bradbury, which you obviously have to see some irony in that. Moore denied Bradbury’s request to change the title and tagline. I will say that I admire Moore’s stance on pro-movie leaking and downloading, which is rare. But I have to wonder if it’s more propaganda designed to increase fandom. Or maybe I just hate the fuckhead because he pissed off one of my favorite writers. But does Russo really have more integrity in the film than Moore has had, or is he not quite as flamboyant at it?

There are many great quotes used throughout the documentary, but some are wrongly attributed, mixed with other quotes, or clipped and cut to incorrectly accuse the originator of ill intent. Take for example the quote from Bill Clinton:
“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." Sounds pretty fucking malicious to me, until I read the quote in its entirety: “We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist.” Moore, I’d say, more or less.

Regardless, there are very noteworthy quotes throughout the film. Edwin Viera says, “All the power is in the people. And to the extent that government becomes alienated from the people, does things the people don't want, power is transferred until you finally come to a Police State, totalitarian state, whatever word you want to give it -- where the desires of the people really have no consequence. They go out and they vote, doesn't make any difference which candidate they elect.” Oddly reminiscent is a quote from Joseph Stalin, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

But perhaps I shouldn’t get hung-up on minor details, and instead focus on the overall message presented: If we truly should pay income tax, then why doesn’t the 16th Amendment apply and why isn’t there a law stating it? So therefor, what is it about the 16th Amendment that is disputed? “Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.” All sources list all 38 states as having ratified the 16th, even Wikipedia (though generally unreliable anyway). And yet, “The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.”

-“The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.”
-“The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.”
-“The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.”
-“The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.”

What it all boils down to is that “33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power the states do not possess.” Another dispute is what “income” actually entails in the Constitution. It’s nowhere described or defined in the document, yet the Supreme Court defines it as: gain from corporate activity. Not wages or labor. Another scary point brought forth is that the Federal Reserve is actually a private bank and not a federal agency.

There seems to be a massive amount of controversy surrounding the movie, which would be understandable considering its message. Many have tried to rebuke the evidence, or lack thereof. For instance, the IMDb states that there is factual error “when speaking of disarming residents in New Orleans the footage actually shows arrests by the California Highway Patrol.” Yet, the “Highway Patrol” shown raiding houses and disarming citizens are in fact dressed in army camo, two of whom are interviewed. I don’t feel like researching this particular topic, especially considering it’s the only scene in the entire movie to be regarded as wrong, but it did strike me as a little odd that they looked just like the Army, as he described them as. (Side note: the man in the picture above is my new personal hero. He is a former IRS Inspector who stumbled onto this information, that there is no income tax law, and inquired about it. He was fired for asking too much and now hasn't paid his federal income taxes in years. Stickin' it to the man, fuck yes.)

The documentary goes on to tell much more about the unlawful taxation, the Federal Reserve, and even predicts the (somewhat typical) Orwellian future that may be ahead. Many great points are presented, and some rather disturbing information is brought to light, though with a somewhat slight of hand. Despite this, it didn’t appear to me to be quite as bad as Moore’s attempts. Though with smoke and mirrors, it’s really anybody’s guess. In the end though, it’s still worth checking out. As a documentary, it’s well-crafted and gets across its point, however astonishing and enraging it may be.


“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” –Benjamin Franklin

August 26, 2007

The art of arguing.

“I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.” -Dave Barry

The ability to argue is a skill, and just like any other skill you acquire, it takes practice. As we face even the smallest of arguments everyday, it would be acceptable to state that we all have quite a lot of experience in the matter. But being a history teacher for twenty or thirty years doesn’t exactly make you a good one, does it? Regardless, we are faced with battles of beliefs in our daily lives, and often without any intention of being involved.

So how does one go about winning these contests of will then? It’s simple, because it’s not about whether you’re right or wrong. It’s about winning. Your own beliefs, like theirs, are completely irrelevant other than serving as the basis for the argument. If you truly believe that you can convince someone of an opposing view to feel the same about an issue as you through basic reasoning and logic, then this isn’t a guide for you. There’s only one way for an opponent to come to an agreement or compromise with you, and that’s through violence. Instead, I’m going to teach you how to win an argument, and give you techniques on how to garner bragging rights and make your opponent feel like an ignorant sack of shit.

The Basics:

How can you tell if you’ve won? There are two possibilities to the outcome of an argument. One is the stalemate. This result occurs prematurely, usually ending with the other party becoming too upset to continue. You must prevent this at all costs. This conclusion is lose/lose and means you both fucking suck at arguing. The other result is completely and utterly exhausting their resources and potential rebuttals. Like baseball, there could end up being extra innings before it’s over, but unlike baseball, neither side is actually going to be declared a winner. This is simply distinguished by how well you perform and who has prevented the other from continuing.

One of the most effective ways to gain the upper hand is to simply not say anything at all. Just let them do the talking for a while. In fact, if given the chance, many people will reveal the flaws in their arguments by simply being allowed to speak. Just watch and listen, and wait for the opening in which the faults and weaknesses become obvious. Be careful not to lose your footing though, especially if they’re providing a strong case, as this could easily lead you to pondering too much on what they’re saying and not what you’re preparing to say when they’re finished. Keep focused and don’t become distracted or the battle will be over before you even begin.

Not everyone will be so inclined to speak their entire case so quickly, especially the ones that are more skilled than others. Asking questions is of course inevitable for both parties, but instead of just being a cog in the clock, it can be used as an incredible tool to give you the advantage. Vague questions are your worst enemy. Unfortunately all first questions must be vague. Break away from this as soon as you can. Your goal is to use as many rhetorical and trick questions as you can. Your questions are less of a means to information, and more for the purpose of distraction and sabotage. Confusion is you’re greatest ally, and you must use it well. Even more satisfying than destroying their point of view is making them forget it and everything they were going to say.

Things to Avoid:

Arguing is much like a driver’s license. It’s a privilege, not a right. Many people you attempt to argue with are going to realize very quickly as it begins that they are not going to win, and will often resort to restating their original premise over and over until it wears you down. In most cases, these people care nothing for winning, only to make you think and feel the way that they do about the subject. But as they begin to see that they’re starting to lose, they’ll instead try to spare themselves from the embarrassment of presenting a weak case and getting their asses handed to them by someone better prepared and more aptly skilled.

It’s impossible to prevent them from backtracking. No matter what you do or say, they are going to keep treading the water hoping they’ll last longer than you. Many arguments will be unresolved in these situations, but if you keep your cool and use your head, you can still extract some satisfaction by forcing them to explain their side. It’s understandable that you’ll become irritated at their games, but the best way to get them to continue instead of regress is dishonesty. Pretend to actually be interested in their point of view and request that they elaborate so you can better understand. If they’re no longer reluctant, then all you have to do is let them do the talking, and the giant, gaping holes in their pile of bullshit will become all too obvious. And the best part after they've explained themselves is that they can no longer continue repeating their original statements.

At all costs, you must not feed off of your emotions, even potentially taking a few steps back. Insults and a change in the tone of your voice, though effective tools for distraction, are not going to see you through to the end of the argument. Getting too personal will indeed cause them to lose their train of thought, but will immediately bring the equal or greater course of action back in your direction. It will become an inescapable cycle until one of the two parties will say something much more personal than the other will be able to accept, and then the argument is over. Instead, retain your composure, and if the other person opts to extreme measures, then play on their emotions, not feed. Anger is a great weapon, provided they aren’t too spiteful that it prevents them from continuing to engage you. Let their rage blind them and cool them back down. You’ll come to find that they’ve misplaced parts of their argument.

You also don’t want to pick apart everything they say. Find only the strengths in the point they’re trying to make and tear them down. If you dispute too many of the minor details, they will: (1.) Potentially become too angry to continue the argument, resulting in a waste of your time, and (2.) you will lose sight of your goal, which is to win. Remember, what you believe is irrelevant. Only winning matters.

Advanced Techniques:

Manipulation is a very useful tool, but practically impossible to master considering the great potential of backfiring. It’s basically an advanced stage of playing on their feelings and emotions. Using tools like guilt and concealing your motives and plans are effective only so far. Eventually you begin to either anger them by becoming too personal or they start to use the same techniques on you. Guilt is only useful when you can make them feel it without actually blaming them. This usually involves direct questions or actually pretending to take the blame all yourself, resulting in even more guilt on their part. This is what I generally consider fighting dirty, and should probably be used as a last resort. Though effective, it definitely won’t win an entire argument for you.

Reading and giving body language can turn out to be quite handy as well. Some tricks have proved the test of time, such as watching the eyes and posture. Some people can give away the strength of their argument just by how their body responds to the pressure and your own reactions. Take heed to control your own though, as most tend to forget this or even acknowledge it. Just as well, it’s actually in itself a form of manipulation, as you can force yourself to give the wrong impression in the situation. If you know you’re telling them a lie, then look them straight in the eyes and tell them as if you truly believe it. Don’t look away, and make sure to say it with conviction.

And what’s the most important tool of all? Planning. The others are techniques, but this is something you must redo each time. You must plan for all possible rebuttals and questions that the other person will have. More than likely their questions will not be used as distractions, but that’s not going to stop you from being caught off your feet by a few of them. You can’t let them use your own weapons against you or you’re both fucked. I should also say that you should never argue over a subject you know little or nothing about, or you’re going to get your ass handed to you, and you’ll deserve every bit of it. You’re in this to win, and you can only do that by ruining their shit. If you share in their embarrassment, even a little, then you lose. But if you achieve victory, you’ll feel great about yourself, and at someone else’s expense, no less. And that’s really all that matters, isn’t it?

August 24, 2007

Rated ‘R’ for “Reaching.”

I remember sitting in my comfy, little seat at the movies waiting for some badass trailers and seeing for the first time the preview for Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects.” I, of course, was quite antsy, expecting another violent roller-fucking-coaster ride through Hell and back. The trailer fed my hunger, but as it ended, something just didn’t sit well. It was the rating. I knew before I even saw it that it would be a hard ‘R.’ That was a given. But it was the explanation for the rating that threw me a bit of confusion: for sadistic violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use. Language and drug use were nothing new. And over the years, for some reason, I’ve seen sexuality and nudity become one when the movie featured both, instead of separating the two. But strong sexual content?

Since when did the MPAA feel the need to use new adjectives, oddly enough on top of other adjectives already describing the movie. But even that wasn’t the real surprise. What really caught my eye was the sadistic violence. I just thought to myself, maybe they just fucking hate you, Rob. But I shook it off, and as time went on, I started noticing more and more descriptive adjectives prefixing the staple explanations we’ve become so accustomed to.

But recently, as I was watching
“Zodiac” on DVD, I noticed a little switch-a-roo on those words and instead of sexual content, I found: ‘R’ for some strong killings. I didn’t really know how to take that. Was that an explanation or a compliment? As in, “those are some tight fucking murders in that movie.” Regardless, is there even an opposite to that? A weak killing? That sounds like an insult. As in, “you guys fucking suck at killing people on TV.” Either way, I had a good laugh.

So what the hell happened to the simple shit that just told us what to expect? Or better yet, why were these explanations for ratings originally created? It was to simply inform the viewers of why that particular movie garnered that particular restriction. If the movie is rated
‘R,’ then they have to explain why annoying, little bastard children aren’t supposed to see it without their annoying, bitchy parents. To go beyond that is not only pointless, but arrogant. I enjoyed "Zodiac" myself, but those killings were far from strong. It’s bad enough that they tell us what we can and can't watch, but now they think they’re fucking critics too?

Another recent rating they’ve given is to the forthcoming
“Return with Honor,” a movie about a pilot shot down in North Vietnam: rated ‘PG’ for sensuality, bullying, and brief smoking. Yes, I’m going to tear down all three of these fucking reasons. First, bullying? That has to be someone’s lame fucking joke, seriously. That is hands down the worst thing I have ever seen in a rating. I’m afraid I don’t even have anything else to really say about that one. I’m dumbstruck. Second is sensuality, which apparently is not as bad as sexuality. I’m guessing that there's more kissing beforehand, he buys her some flowers, tells her he loves her, and then calls her back after the first date. It’s nothing like sexuality, which would be dirty, sweaty sex in a truck-stop bathroom, anal or doggie-style, and in between hits of their crack pipe they'd hail Satan, right?

The last one is something I truly expected, but this is the first I’ve actually seen in a rating: brief smoking. That’s right, ass-hats. Not drug use. Smoking. And brief, at that.
I’m not sure if you have noticed, but smoking has disappeared from movies and television over the past decade. I talked quite a bit before about how they were going to start rating for this, but this is the first I’ve seen them come out and say it in a rating. I’m caught being surprised between the rating itself and the fact that the directors/writers actually had the balls to put someone smoking in the movie, a ‘PG’ movie, no less. Props to Tom Hanks for sticking it to Big Brother and the MPAA.

I don’t really have any great solution. Problems like these are never solved. They’re only dealt with, accepted, coped with. The problem isn’t the people in power making decisions for us. The real problem is that we make pathetic decisions for ourselves and give the worst of the group too much power. You want someone to blame for ratings on movies, video games, CDs, and television programs? Then blame yourself. Indifference is worse than being wrong.

I’ll leave you with the greatest rating I know of, almost poetic: Rob Zombie’s soon-to-be-released “Halloween,” rated ‘R’ for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language. Now I’m sure. They hate you, Rob, and everything you fucking touch. But don’t worry. Even though I’ve been waiting for this one, I’d go see the movie based on that kickass description alone (well, that and your wife). See you at the movies, bitches.

August 6, 2007

Bush throws another donkey punch.

Yet again we let the president and his dumbass flunkies stick it in our ass and break it off. We all just sit idly by and most don’t even notice the rape, which is a crime in itself. Yesterday, “President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.” What this means is that the new law allows the NSA to do what they were already doing in secrecy, far beyond the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) established in 1978. “This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

For a bit of history, FISA was amended back in 2001 after the September 11th attacks, and became better known as the USA PATRIOT Act, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. No shit…? That’s a metric fuckton of pretty words, almost even more than I can swallow. But then I guess it’s not being shoved into my mouth, is it?

“The act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.” And the best part? “The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include 'domestic terrorism,' thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.”

The real kicker was that the act was only supposed to last until December 31, 2005, but was pushed by a bunch of assholes to be permanent. So in July of 2005, Bush did just that, long before the deadline. Fast-forward to yesterday: “Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas.” So basically this means that instead of fucking us in the dark, now they’re kind enough to turn the light on while they do it. It’s a nice gesture, but the next step would be letting us turn around to see who’s thrusting.

“By changing the legal definition of what is considered ‘electronic surveillance,’ the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants.” None of this shit is really news to us, because we’ve known all along that they were doing it. The real news here is that now they’ve created a law for themselves that says they can do it. There’s a six month expiration on this, but I’m sure before that happens that they’ll extend it or make it permanent as well.

But why now? Why the fuck should they give a rat’s ass about what we think? It turns out that telecommunication companies were giving the Bush administration a shitstorm of bitching to the third power, because they kept getting sued over allowing third party surveillance to their customers. So what did Bush decide to do about it? “The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.” “Compelled” being the key word there. Well, I for one am sure glad our troops are overseas fighting for freedom, because it looks like we still have a long way to go. But they are doing a great job: one tyrant down, one to go.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...