November 21, 2010 @ 12:54 a.m.
Just before I was locked out of my Weebly blog on November 19, 2010, I had put pictures of the Burlington Free Press Hometown section from November 17, 2010 in slideshows on the blog page entitled “11/19/10” and I was about to talk about them. I was going to say that the Young Writers’ Project page, on which were printed mostly works sent by children and young teenagers in response to the Burlington Free Press’s prompt to “Write About Red,” showcases a lot of talent. It’s too bad that the talent was misdirected by the Burlington Free Press’s attempts to exploit those children and teenagers in order to get them to write, knowingly or not, about death threats and executions, and, it seems, some sexual themes that there really isn't any reason for; very young children get published on that page.
Just before I was locked out of my Weebly blog on November 19, 2010, I had put pictures of the Burlington Free Press Hometown section from November 17, 2010 in slideshows on the blog page entitled “11/19/10” and I was about to talk about them. I was going to say that the Young Writers’ Project page, on which were printed mostly works sent by children and young teenagers in response to the Burlington Free Press’s prompt to “Write About Red,” showcases a lot of talent. It’s too bad that the talent was misdirected by the Burlington Free Press’s attempts to exploit those children and teenagers in order to get them to write, knowingly or not, about death threats and executions, and, it seems, some sexual themes that there really isn't any reason for; very young children get published on that page.
More pictures from the 11/17/10 Burlington Free Press's weekly "Hometown" section:
November 21, 2010 @ 1:50 a.m.
The pictures in the above slideshow are of two pages in the Hometown section from the November 17, 2010 Burlington Free Press that have pictures of students that go to a private, Catholic grade school and a private, Catholic high school. The picture of two rows of girls who are not more than 12 or 13 are on the page with an ad for “Vermont Meat & Seafood Market,” with its list of products including “All-Natural Meats, Fresh Seafood Direct from Boston, Exquisite Wines, Fresh Local Produce, Specialty Products and Marinated Meats, and LaPlatte River Angus Meat.” The address is also given as “Cornerstone Drive,” which stoning reference I’m sure the Burlington Free Press was happy to make in addition to the pedophilic implication of putting that ad where it was on the page.
The other, opposite page, showing Rice High School athletes, has an ad for “Lake Champlain Chocolates” on it. Lake Champlain Chocolates has been persistent in its participation in the harassment and had some extremely inappropriate ads; ads that were inappropriate even when not placed next to pictures of children and teenagers.
Here’s my question to the Catholic Church; if children, teenagers and adults who go to Catholic schools and Catholic churches start getting molested and harassed as a result of what the federal, Vermont state and Vermont local government and other entities have been endorsing for the past several months, who’s going to pay for the lawsuits? Do you think that you’re going to be able to get the U.S. government to pay? It seems to me that the U.S. government has been trying both to pass everything it has done off as a joke and also say that it’s not illegal, but the consequences of promoting the attitudes will be situations that are illegal by any interpretation of the law; who’s going to take responsibility for it?
No matter who was endorsing the crimes against children and other members of the Catholic Church that will result from this situation, if the incidents take place on the grounds and within the jurisdiction of Catholic schools and churches, the people affiliated with the Catholic Church who commit those crimes are going to be the ones charged with the crimes. Also, if lawsuits get brought by angry parents whose children or teenagers get molested, or by angry, adult members of the church who get mauled by church officials as a result of the U.S. government’s endorsement of sexual harassment and threatening behavior, it’s the Catholic Church that’s going to be held legally and financially responsible.
I think that if the U.S. government and others who have been involved in endorsing these kinds of crimes continue along their present path, eventually it will be possible to hold them liable. I’ve provided a lot of documentation; other people have also been watching what’s been going on for a long time.
However, if crimes get committed by Catholic officials and/or on Catholic or Catholic-affiliated property, it’s the Catholic Church that’s going to be held responsible; that will be true even if the victims then file additional lawsuits against the governments, schools, media, businesses, charities, individuals and other entities that encouraged all the crimes.
@ 1:58 a.m.
I just looked at some of the blog posts for "Catholic Church." At the end of the one that's called "Wurhl elevated to cardinal by pope as supporters cheer," that talks about rain and has other harassing references on it, including mention of the Gulf oil spill, Vanguard whose logo is a ship and "cochlear implants," implying that I need a hearing aid because I'm not hearing that the Catholic Church doesn't care about people being abused and exploited, there's a section credited to "Slate" online that says "U.S. Courts Should Admit Some Evidence Obtained Through Torture."
I've put the pictures so that you can follow the progression along the website and see some the harassment, but the line that says "U.S. Courts Should Admit Some Evidence Obtained Through Torture" is in the last picture.
The pictures in the above slideshow are of two pages in the Hometown section from the November 17, 2010 Burlington Free Press that have pictures of students that go to a private, Catholic grade school and a private, Catholic high school. The picture of two rows of girls who are not more than 12 or 13 are on the page with an ad for “Vermont Meat & Seafood Market,” with its list of products including “All-Natural Meats, Fresh Seafood Direct from Boston, Exquisite Wines, Fresh Local Produce, Specialty Products and Marinated Meats, and LaPlatte River Angus Meat.” The address is also given as “Cornerstone Drive,” which stoning reference I’m sure the Burlington Free Press was happy to make in addition to the pedophilic implication of putting that ad where it was on the page.
The other, opposite page, showing Rice High School athletes, has an ad for “Lake Champlain Chocolates” on it. Lake Champlain Chocolates has been persistent in its participation in the harassment and had some extremely inappropriate ads; ads that were inappropriate even when not placed next to pictures of children and teenagers.
Here’s my question to the Catholic Church; if children, teenagers and adults who go to Catholic schools and Catholic churches start getting molested and harassed as a result of what the federal, Vermont state and Vermont local government and other entities have been endorsing for the past several months, who’s going to pay for the lawsuits? Do you think that you’re going to be able to get the U.S. government to pay? It seems to me that the U.S. government has been trying both to pass everything it has done off as a joke and also say that it’s not illegal, but the consequences of promoting the attitudes will be situations that are illegal by any interpretation of the law; who’s going to take responsibility for it?
No matter who was endorsing the crimes against children and other members of the Catholic Church that will result from this situation, if the incidents take place on the grounds and within the jurisdiction of Catholic schools and churches, the people affiliated with the Catholic Church who commit those crimes are going to be the ones charged with the crimes. Also, if lawsuits get brought by angry parents whose children or teenagers get molested, or by angry, adult members of the church who get mauled by church officials as a result of the U.S. government’s endorsement of sexual harassment and threatening behavior, it’s the Catholic Church that’s going to be held legally and financially responsible.
I think that if the U.S. government and others who have been involved in endorsing these kinds of crimes continue along their present path, eventually it will be possible to hold them liable. I’ve provided a lot of documentation; other people have also been watching what’s been going on for a long time.
However, if crimes get committed by Catholic officials and/or on Catholic or Catholic-affiliated property, it’s the Catholic Church that’s going to be held responsible; that will be true even if the victims then file additional lawsuits against the governments, schools, media, businesses, charities, individuals and other entities that encouraged all the crimes.
@ 1:58 a.m.
I just looked at some of the blog posts for "Catholic Church." At the end of the one that's called "Wurhl elevated to cardinal by pope as supporters cheer," that talks about rain and has other harassing references on it, including mention of the Gulf oil spill, Vanguard whose logo is a ship and "cochlear implants," implying that I need a hearing aid because I'm not hearing that the Catholic Church doesn't care about people being abused and exploited, there's a section credited to "Slate" online that says "U.S. Courts Should Admit Some Evidence Obtained Through Torture."
I've put the pictures so that you can follow the progression along the website and see some the harassment, but the line that says "U.S. Courts Should Admit Some Evidence Obtained Through Torture" is in the last picture.
November 21, 2010 @ 4:10 a.m.
It’s been a long time since the Catholic Church had the kind of encouragement to hurt and dominate people that Iran has been getting lately; no wonder the Catholic Church wants to be part of the harassment and wants the prisoners in Iran to be executed. We’re not just going back to the 1950’s; we’re going back to the Middle Ages.
Next I’m going to put something that Wikipedia has to say about “The Inquisition”:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional role
In practice, the Inquisition would not itself pronounce sentence, but handed over convicted heretics to secular authorities.[9] The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and can not be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.[10]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 4:45 a.m.
Here’s something that I first wrote on my blog page entitled “11/17/10 It’s all just a joke to the Obamas”:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Page 4A of the November 17, 2010 Burlington Free Press, the first story is called “Pilgrims mark hajj with stoning ritual.” There are two pictures; one with a caption that reads “Muslim pilgrims cast stones Tuesday at a pillar, symbolizing the stoning of Satan, in a ritual called “Jamarat,” the last rite of the annual hajj in Mina near the Saudi holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The first day of stoning also marks the start of the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, or feast of sacrifice, when Muslims around the world slaughter sheep and cattle in remembrance of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son.”
The second picture shows a little girl sitting on her father’s shoulder, with her arm outstretched after she has just thrown a stone. The caption says “A Muslim child pilgrim casts stones Tuesday at a pillar in Mina, Saudi Arabia.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 4:50 a.m.
Is that what the Catholic Church means by “a better hajj?” Is the Catholic Church talking about stoning, executing or otherwise continuing to detain and harm the prisoners in Iran?
It’s been a long time since the Catholic Church had the kind of encouragement to hurt and dominate people that Iran has been getting lately; no wonder the Catholic Church wants to be part of the harassment and wants the prisoners in Iran to be executed. We’re not just going back to the 1950’s; we’re going back to the Middle Ages.
Next I’m going to put something that Wikipedia has to say about “The Inquisition”:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional role
In practice, the Inquisition would not itself pronounce sentence, but handed over convicted heretics to secular authorities.[9] The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and can not be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.[10]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 4:45 a.m.
Here’s something that I first wrote on my blog page entitled “11/17/10 It’s all just a joke to the Obamas”:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Page 4A of the November 17, 2010 Burlington Free Press, the first story is called “Pilgrims mark hajj with stoning ritual.” There are two pictures; one with a caption that reads “Muslim pilgrims cast stones Tuesday at a pillar, symbolizing the stoning of Satan, in a ritual called “Jamarat,” the last rite of the annual hajj in Mina near the Saudi holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The first day of stoning also marks the start of the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, or feast of sacrifice, when Muslims around the world slaughter sheep and cattle in remembrance of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son.”
The second picture shows a little girl sitting on her father’s shoulder, with her arm outstretched after she has just thrown a stone. The caption says “A Muslim child pilgrim casts stones Tuesday at a pillar in Mina, Saudi Arabia.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 4:50 a.m.
Is that what the Catholic Church means by “a better hajj?” Is the Catholic Church talking about stoning, executing or otherwise continuing to detain and harm the prisoners in Iran?
Pictures of the 11/17/10 Burlington Free Press/Associated Press story entitled "Pilgrims mark hajj with stoning ritual"
November 21, 2010 @ 5:09 a.m.
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani isn’t Satan, any more than Zeinab Jalalian is Satan, any more than anyone else who’s been arrested for no reason and detained for no reason, put on trial and sentenced to death for no reason in Iran is Satan. What’s more, no children should be getting encouraged to see other human beings as Satan; even people who do bad things aren’t Satan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 5:11 a.m.
Here's something that U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders said in the November 20, 2010 Burlington Free Press:
""I am extremely proud that working with local communities, nonprofits, the National Guard, that we have brought in millions and millions of dollars that are playing a positive role in the state.""
The quote is from an article on the front page entitled "Vt. delegation stands behind earmarks," and has a picture of Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Peter Welch and Senator Patrick Leahy.
Next I'm going to put more pictures from the November 17, 2010 "Hometown" section in the Burlington Free Press.
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani isn’t Satan, any more than Zeinab Jalalian is Satan, any more than anyone else who’s been arrested for no reason and detained for no reason, put on trial and sentenced to death for no reason in Iran is Satan. What’s more, no children should be getting encouraged to see other human beings as Satan; even people who do bad things aren’t Satan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 5:11 a.m.
Here's something that U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders said in the November 20, 2010 Burlington Free Press:
""I am extremely proud that working with local communities, nonprofits, the National Guard, that we have brought in millions and millions of dollars that are playing a positive role in the state.""
The quote is from an article on the front page entitled "Vt. delegation stands behind earmarks," and has a picture of Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Peter Welch and Senator Patrick Leahy.
Next I'm going to put more pictures from the November 17, 2010 "Hometown" section in the Burlington Free Press.
Pictures featuring a speaker on behalf of Bernie Sanders, and another ad for the ECHO/Leahy Center, in the 11/17/10 "Hometown" section of the Burlington Free Press
November 21, 2010 @ 7:13 a.m.
I put captions on the pictures in the preceding slideshow to explain the pictures.
I’m going to say something before I put up the next set of pictures.
It only takes one kid getting molested as a result of this situation for it to be a tragedy. Do you really want to wait to see if that’s what ends up happening? Do you really think that pedophiles all around the country and all around the world haven't been watching every second of this situation since it began, wondering if pedophilia is going to become legal because the government has been endorsing it? While they’re waiting, do you think that they haven’t been looking for their chance to find victims, figuring out which school districts are the most enthusiastic about the Burlington Free Press’s and other community newspapers’ activities?
It’s not funny and it’s not cute, and once somebody gets hurt you can't take back everything or anything you did to contribute to the momentum of the situation or say "I didn't think that would really happen" and have your saying that make it not have happened; somebody else whom you've never met and will never meet will have to carry the burden of what you helped create, and all you'll be able to do is live with the guilt if guilt is something that you're capable of feeling.
Criminals look for their chance to commit the crimes that they prefer; they are constantly looking for opportunities to commit crimes. It's not as if there was no crime in Vermont or anywhere else in the world before it started getting endorsed by the exact establishments that are supposed to be fighting it. The second that criminals think that they can get away with something, they try to get away with it.
I put captions on the pictures in the preceding slideshow to explain the pictures.
I’m going to say something before I put up the next set of pictures.
It only takes one kid getting molested as a result of this situation for it to be a tragedy. Do you really want to wait to see if that’s what ends up happening? Do you really think that pedophiles all around the country and all around the world haven't been watching every second of this situation since it began, wondering if pedophilia is going to become legal because the government has been endorsing it? While they’re waiting, do you think that they haven’t been looking for their chance to find victims, figuring out which school districts are the most enthusiastic about the Burlington Free Press’s and other community newspapers’ activities?
It’s not funny and it’s not cute, and once somebody gets hurt you can't take back everything or anything you did to contribute to the momentum of the situation or say "I didn't think that would really happen" and have your saying that make it not have happened; somebody else whom you've never met and will never meet will have to carry the burden of what you helped create, and all you'll be able to do is live with the guilt if guilt is something that you're capable of feeling.
Criminals look for their chance to commit the crimes that they prefer; they are constantly looking for opportunities to commit crimes. It's not as if there was no crime in Vermont or anywhere else in the world before it started getting endorsed by the exact establishments that are supposed to be fighting it. The second that criminals think that they can get away with something, they try to get away with it.
Vermont Air National Guard featured in the 11/17/10 Burlington Free Press's "Hometown" section in support of the harassment, pedophilia and everything else that the Burlington Free Press does:
November 21, 2010 @ 7:49 a.m.
I put some captions on the pictures in the above slideshow.
There were more problems in this “Hometown” section than these, as I said when I first wrote about it a few days ago.
November 21, 2010 @ 8:30 a.m.
Charlie Rangel got convicted of 11 counts of ethics violations and has been recommended to be censured by the entire U.S. House of Representatives. It's a joke; it's code for the government, media and entertainment industry hassling Zac Efron whose movie this past summer was Charlie St. Cloud. "Charlie Rangel" has been code for Zac Efron for months now.
The 11 counts are because Leonardo DiCaprio made up that fake blog post that said that Aretha Wilson, the woman he accused and got convicted of attacking him, was in a car accident in 1993 that left her with "11 scars or places of scarring on her face;" there aren't, though, as I wrote about on my blog on Weebly on 11/17/10. There's only the one, big scar on her face which I think it's possible he put there when he was the one who attacked her at that party 5 years ago, and then he went after her and said she did it to him; I think it's possible that he turned it all around on her in order to protect his reputation and that she hasn't done anything wrong at all, even though on November 22, 2010 she's expected to be sentenced to 2 years in jail.
Then there's also Livia Bistriceanu, whom Mr. DiCaprio got a 3-year restraining order against and about whom he seems to have created a bunch of lies, too.
The first blog post for the name "Barack Obama" this morning has a bunch of pigs on it.
Then he's got another one with more about the BP oil spill and "the 9mm won't save you," and "bacon appetizers."
Then he's got another one that says "Wear a Poppy (red flower) and give generously."
Is Barack Obama in charge at the White House or not? If so, is this how he plans to continue being the President? Is this really what he wants it to be like, a sick joke all the time?
What right does this President or anyone associated with him have to call me horrible names when this is how he and they behave?
Leonardo DiCaprio has "The BP Oil Spill" ad at the top of his blog post that says that he "won a conviction" against Aretha Wilson.
I've been awake the entire night writing here, so my final thoughts for the moment aren't as organized as they otherwise might be.
According to the Google blog posts I just read about Charlie Rangel, one of which said "Eureka" at the top, as in "You-reek-ah," and had an ad along the side for some mix of homeless-person-Salt-Lake-City-mattress thing, Charlie Rangel has been getting invesigated for the past 2 years. I'd never heard of any of that before Zac Efron's movie "Charlie St. Cloud" got released in the theater this past summer, and then all of a sudden, for months, even until now, the government and NBC and newspapers and so on were all saying things like "Charlie Rangel has to make a deal with the Democratic Party," "Charlie Rangel only has so long to make a deal or his career's going to be ruined," "Charlie Rangel's going to get convicted of ethics violations," and it's all code, it's all threatening to Zac Efron, who's 23 years old. The real Charlie Rangel seems to be having a very bad time, too; he's 80 years old, and what I just read said that he can't afford a lawyer anymore, probably because the media and the government have been exaggerating and drawing out his case as a joke and using him as threatening code for Zac Efron for such a long time that now Mr. Rangel's out of money, can't afford a lawyer, has a ruined reputation as an elderly man and, what now, is he going to go to jail? And then is Zac Efron going to go to jail, too?
Am I going to be hearing about Charlie Rangel/Zac Efron for the next 10 years? "Charlie Rangel has AGAIN be denied for parole." "Charlie Rangel only has so long to complete his 10th appeal to get out of jail on good behavior." "Charlie Rangel has been deprived of library privileges." "Charlie Rangel applied today to receive a 2nd suit of prison clothes; even though all he was asking for were the shirt and the pants with the elasticized waistband and maybe another pair of socks, his request was denied." "We were going to let Charlie Rangel out at the end of his 10-year sentence but then we decided not to; he's in for another 10."
In addition to being extremely unethical and dishonest, this situation is by far the strangest thing that I have ever seen adults create and participate in. How anybody who's part of perpetuating it finds it funny or thinks that it's a good thing to do is beyond me; they have the care of the country and the world in their hands, and they use it to make up stories and to threaten people for no reason.
I just barely looked up something on the Internet. I'm going to try to put the first page of it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Rights Amendment: An Introduction
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
These simple words comprise the entire text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), affirming the equal application of the U.S. Constitution to both females and males. The ERA was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. She and the NWP considered the ERA to be the next necessary step after the 19th Amendment (affirming women's right to vote) in guaranteeing "equal justice under law" to all citizens.
The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.
In the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008), the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced as S.J. Res. 10 (Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA, lead sponsor) and H.J. Res. 40 (Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY, lead sponsor). These bills impose no deadline on the ratification process in their proposing clauses. The ERA Task Force of the National Council of Women's Organizations supports these bills and urges groups and individuals to advocate for more co-sponsors and passage.
For a more comprehensive historical account of the ERA....
For "Reconstituting the ERA: Policy Implications for Sex Discrimination"....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 10:30 a.m.
President Obama seems as if he's trying to destroy people's diginity and their ability to live normal, safe, free, productive lives and I really, still, have trouble understanding why he's doing it.
@ 2:56 p.m.
From my perspective, what's been happening is completely offensive; it's offensive no matter to whom it's happening. For example, Charlie Rangel is 80 years old; he's 80 years old, and it seems as if he's being given a horrible time. Maybe he did some things wrong, and maybe he didn't; given what the Obama administration has been like as far as I have seen it operate, I would say it's certainly possible if not likely that Charlie Rangel didn't do anything wrong and is being persecuted for the amusement and convenience of the government and I guess maybe also the entertainment industry in order to try to control Zac Efron with a code name.
This is not what it's supposed to be like to live in the United States and be a citizen here; nobody is supposed to be trying to threaten and control you. Everything that has been happening is the exact opposite of what life here is supposed to be like.
@ 6:04 p.m.
Maybe that's something that some of the people who have been promoting this situation didn't realize; they didn't realize how important it is not to set a precedent for the government going after people the way it's been doing. It's really important that this completely stop and never happen again, not with the government or the media or corporations, either; you can't just go after people and abuse them.
I noticed the other night that my neighbor across the street has a big, plastic fish tacked up on the wall of his porch. It may have been there all along, but I never noticed it before. That family's been there for 20 years, at least; the parents got divorced and there's been a girlfriend for a couple of years.
It seems to me that the government's behavior is encouraging people to be suspicious of each other and to abuse each other; there is NOTHING GOOD in what is happening. It is ALL bad.
I also noticed that the gas companies seem to be planning to cover the gas stations with new signs featuring the number "5." I'd really rather that they didn't. As I've said before, none of the attempts to humiliate me have worked; however, there's no reason to continue to try. I don't need the difficulties of it; for most of the second half of the summer, I really couldn't leave the house without people walking right up to me to harass me or even following me around to do so; more than once, people even followed me into public bathrooms and harassed me there.
If I've had trouble finding a job, it's because just leaving the house has been made difficult by what has happened.
Speaking of finding a job, I've noticed that there have been captions along the side of the government blog posts for everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama that say "Unemployment benefits about to run out!!" Privacy is of no concern to this government, and it couldn't be more obvious that this is a government that wants to hurt and humiliate people in addition to wanting to control and threaten them.
It's true that my unemployment benefits are almost gone. Once again; I don't feel humiliated by the government for its efforts to taunt me about something that it has no business displaying in public that way or harassing anybody about. I am noting the government's intention to hurt and humiliate, which doesn't mean that it succeeded in making me feel what it wants me to feel. The government did not succeed in making me feel one second of what it wants me to feel. I'm serious about that; humiliation is never the source of my anger about these issues. I get angry because the government shouldn't be doing what it's been doing.
Copyright L. Kochman November 21, 2010
I put some captions on the pictures in the above slideshow.
There were more problems in this “Hometown” section than these, as I said when I first wrote about it a few days ago.
November 21, 2010 @ 8:30 a.m.
Charlie Rangel got convicted of 11 counts of ethics violations and has been recommended to be censured by the entire U.S. House of Representatives. It's a joke; it's code for the government, media and entertainment industry hassling Zac Efron whose movie this past summer was Charlie St. Cloud. "Charlie Rangel" has been code for Zac Efron for months now.
The 11 counts are because Leonardo DiCaprio made up that fake blog post that said that Aretha Wilson, the woman he accused and got convicted of attacking him, was in a car accident in 1993 that left her with "11 scars or places of scarring on her face;" there aren't, though, as I wrote about on my blog on Weebly on 11/17/10. There's only the one, big scar on her face which I think it's possible he put there when he was the one who attacked her at that party 5 years ago, and then he went after her and said she did it to him; I think it's possible that he turned it all around on her in order to protect his reputation and that she hasn't done anything wrong at all, even though on November 22, 2010 she's expected to be sentenced to 2 years in jail.
Then there's also Livia Bistriceanu, whom Mr. DiCaprio got a 3-year restraining order against and about whom he seems to have created a bunch of lies, too.
The first blog post for the name "Barack Obama" this morning has a bunch of pigs on it.
Then he's got another one with more about the BP oil spill and "the 9mm won't save you," and "bacon appetizers."
Then he's got another one that says "Wear a Poppy (red flower) and give generously."
Is Barack Obama in charge at the White House or not? If so, is this how he plans to continue being the President? Is this really what he wants it to be like, a sick joke all the time?
What right does this President or anyone associated with him have to call me horrible names when this is how he and they behave?
Leonardo DiCaprio has "The BP Oil Spill" ad at the top of his blog post that says that he "won a conviction" against Aretha Wilson.
I've been awake the entire night writing here, so my final thoughts for the moment aren't as organized as they otherwise might be.
According to the Google blog posts I just read about Charlie Rangel, one of which said "Eureka" at the top, as in "You-reek-ah," and had an ad along the side for some mix of homeless-person-Salt-Lake-City-mattress thing, Charlie Rangel has been getting invesigated for the past 2 years. I'd never heard of any of that before Zac Efron's movie "Charlie St. Cloud" got released in the theater this past summer, and then all of a sudden, for months, even until now, the government and NBC and newspapers and so on were all saying things like "Charlie Rangel has to make a deal with the Democratic Party," "Charlie Rangel only has so long to make a deal or his career's going to be ruined," "Charlie Rangel's going to get convicted of ethics violations," and it's all code, it's all threatening to Zac Efron, who's 23 years old. The real Charlie Rangel seems to be having a very bad time, too; he's 80 years old, and what I just read said that he can't afford a lawyer anymore, probably because the media and the government have been exaggerating and drawing out his case as a joke and using him as threatening code for Zac Efron for such a long time that now Mr. Rangel's out of money, can't afford a lawyer, has a ruined reputation as an elderly man and, what now, is he going to go to jail? And then is Zac Efron going to go to jail, too?
Am I going to be hearing about Charlie Rangel/Zac Efron for the next 10 years? "Charlie Rangel has AGAIN be denied for parole." "Charlie Rangel only has so long to complete his 10th appeal to get out of jail on good behavior." "Charlie Rangel has been deprived of library privileges." "Charlie Rangel applied today to receive a 2nd suit of prison clothes; even though all he was asking for were the shirt and the pants with the elasticized waistband and maybe another pair of socks, his request was denied." "We were going to let Charlie Rangel out at the end of his 10-year sentence but then we decided not to; he's in for another 10."
In addition to being extremely unethical and dishonest, this situation is by far the strangest thing that I have ever seen adults create and participate in. How anybody who's part of perpetuating it finds it funny or thinks that it's a good thing to do is beyond me; they have the care of the country and the world in their hands, and they use it to make up stories and to threaten people for no reason.
I just barely looked up something on the Internet. I'm going to try to put the first page of it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Rights Amendment: An Introduction
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
These simple words comprise the entire text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), affirming the equal application of the U.S. Constitution to both females and males. The ERA was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, suffragist leader and founder of the National Woman's Party. She and the NWP considered the ERA to be the next necessary step after the 19th Amendment (affirming women's right to vote) in guaranteeing "equal justice under law" to all citizens.
The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.
In the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008), the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced as S.J. Res. 10 (Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA, lead sponsor) and H.J. Res. 40 (Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY, lead sponsor). These bills impose no deadline on the ratification process in their proposing clauses. The ERA Task Force of the National Council of Women's Organizations supports these bills and urges groups and individuals to advocate for more co-sponsors and passage.
For a more comprehensive historical account of the ERA....
For "Reconstituting the ERA: Policy Implications for Sex Discrimination"....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2010 @ 10:30 a.m.
President Obama seems as if he's trying to destroy people's diginity and their ability to live normal, safe, free, productive lives and I really, still, have trouble understanding why he's doing it.
@ 2:56 p.m.
From my perspective, what's been happening is completely offensive; it's offensive no matter to whom it's happening. For example, Charlie Rangel is 80 years old; he's 80 years old, and it seems as if he's being given a horrible time. Maybe he did some things wrong, and maybe he didn't; given what the Obama administration has been like as far as I have seen it operate, I would say it's certainly possible if not likely that Charlie Rangel didn't do anything wrong and is being persecuted for the amusement and convenience of the government and I guess maybe also the entertainment industry in order to try to control Zac Efron with a code name.
This is not what it's supposed to be like to live in the United States and be a citizen here; nobody is supposed to be trying to threaten and control you. Everything that has been happening is the exact opposite of what life here is supposed to be like.
@ 6:04 p.m.
Maybe that's something that some of the people who have been promoting this situation didn't realize; they didn't realize how important it is not to set a precedent for the government going after people the way it's been doing. It's really important that this completely stop and never happen again, not with the government or the media or corporations, either; you can't just go after people and abuse them.
I noticed the other night that my neighbor across the street has a big, plastic fish tacked up on the wall of his porch. It may have been there all along, but I never noticed it before. That family's been there for 20 years, at least; the parents got divorced and there's been a girlfriend for a couple of years.
It seems to me that the government's behavior is encouraging people to be suspicious of each other and to abuse each other; there is NOTHING GOOD in what is happening. It is ALL bad.
I also noticed that the gas companies seem to be planning to cover the gas stations with new signs featuring the number "5." I'd really rather that they didn't. As I've said before, none of the attempts to humiliate me have worked; however, there's no reason to continue to try. I don't need the difficulties of it; for most of the second half of the summer, I really couldn't leave the house without people walking right up to me to harass me or even following me around to do so; more than once, people even followed me into public bathrooms and harassed me there.
If I've had trouble finding a job, it's because just leaving the house has been made difficult by what has happened.
Speaking of finding a job, I've noticed that there have been captions along the side of the government blog posts for everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama that say "Unemployment benefits about to run out!!" Privacy is of no concern to this government, and it couldn't be more obvious that this is a government that wants to hurt and humiliate people in addition to wanting to control and threaten them.
It's true that my unemployment benefits are almost gone. Once again; I don't feel humiliated by the government for its efforts to taunt me about something that it has no business displaying in public that way or harassing anybody about. I am noting the government's intention to hurt and humiliate, which doesn't mean that it succeeded in making me feel what it wants me to feel. The government did not succeed in making me feel one second of what it wants me to feel. I'm serious about that; humiliation is never the source of my anger about these issues. I get angry because the government shouldn't be doing what it's been doing.
Copyright L. Kochman November 21, 2010