Password, Please

This is something that's been bugging me for around a month now. Employers screen applicants with background checks, fine. I can understand that to a point; you don't want to hire a serial rapist/murderer/cannibal, I get it. Employers also screen for drug use, which I don't get. Is there some skill that you only have when not stoned out of your gourd that allows you to work a cash register correctly?

Eh, whatever.

But when I heard about employers asking applicants for their social networking names and passwords, I have to wonder "who the fuck do you think you are?"

They say it's just a suggestion, that the applicant is only volunteering this information. But that in itself a load of shit.

To quote Lori Andrews on this subject:

Lori Andrews, a law professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law specializing in Internet privacy, is concerned about the pressure placed on applicants, even if they voluntarily provide access to social sites.

"Volunteering is coercion if you need a job," Andrews said.

Let's look at it this way. If you don't get a job soon, you'll be on the street. This makes you desperate for work, any kind of work. This employer knows this. They also know that with the unemployment rate still sitting high at 8.3% as of March 21st, 2012 there are millions of people just as desperate as you. So, they ask you to give up your privacy in exchange for the hope that they might hire you when it's just as likely that they'll hire the other guy who'll not only take their privacy raping dick up his ass but will likely turn around and say "You don't even have to give me a kiss."

How is it that employers can get away with this? High unemployment breeds masses of desperate people. Is this unethical? Yes, of course, but since when has a business ever been over burdened with ethics? Is it illegal? No, but just fucking barely.

That may well change. Maryland (pdf) and Illinois are introducing bills that would "prevent employers from discriminating against prospective employees who don't give them their password."

That's a step in the right direction, but as the Maryland Department of Corrections have proved, they'll just make you log in to your Facebook account and tell you where to click just to skirt those laws.

See, one is an invasion of privacy while the other is an invasion of privacy as well as a nice bag of humiliation.

Privacy is not a dirty word and people need to remember why it is such an important right.

Damn Queer-o-sexuals and their Rights

So, it seems that some people have been on me to update, noting (rightly) that I haven't updated since November.

So, here I am again, not even sure why I took such a long break after all the crap that I've seen to annoy the piss out of me. I think today, I am gonna talk about marriage.

No, I am not going to talk about "gay marriage" because same sex couples don't send out invitations to their "gay marriage" and they don't say their gay vows at the gay altar and then have a gay wedding reception. They get married. End of story.

Is it a civil right? Yes, I do believe it is in much the same way that interracial marriages are a civil right. I hear people saying it isn't like interracial, surprisingly quite often coming from African Americans themselves. To anyone who says that I have but one thing to say:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't think it's a civil right to be able to marry the person you love? Seriously? You don't believe it's a civil right to be able to raise a family with the person you're in a committed relationship with? If you think that, you're a moron; plain and simple.

Remember, Remember the 17th of November

Occupy

"If you arrest one of us, two more will appear.
You cannot arrest an idea who's time has come."

The Faceless Masses

By now you've likely heard about the dead-of-night raid on the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park in New York and the judge who sided with the city in not allowing them to camp there anymore. Remember how the flimsy excuse given by the millionaire mayor was because of "sanitation" and "crime"? Well, maybe there wouldn't be a crime problem there if the NYPD would stop sending violent drunk and drug addicted homeless people to the OWS camp.

But, that is not what I want to talk about right now.

So far we have seen these violent police actions in New York, Oakland, Portland, and Denver. Have you seen any evidence that these actions are achieving their intended goals? I haven't, all it seems to have done is galvanized the protestors. And even in that bastion of liberal thought and Starbucks known as Seattle, the police have been caught pepper-spraying an 84-year old woman and a pregnant lady.

It seems I wasn't far off the mark when I noted we're on the threshold of revolution, either. From an article on Truth-out.org:

The historian Crane Brinton in his book “Anatomy of a Revolution” laid out the common route to revolution. The preconditions for successful revolution, Brinton argued, are discontent that affects nearly all social classes, widespread feelings of entrapment and despair, unfulfilled expectations, a unified solidarity in opposition to a tiny power elite, a refusal by scholars and thinkers to continue to defend the actions of the ruling class, an inability of government to respond to the basic needs of citizens, a steady loss of will within the power elite itself and defections from the inner circle, a crippling isolation that leaves the power elite without any allies or outside support and, finally, a financial crisis. Our corporate elite, as far as Brinton was concerned, has amply fulfilled these preconditions. But it is Brinton’s next observation that is most worth remembering. Revolutions always begin, he wrote, by making impossible demands that if the government met would mean the end of the old configurations of power. The second stage, the one we have entered now, is the unsuccessful attempt by the power elite to quell the unrest and discontent through physical acts of repression.

Let's make no mistake about this; the actions of the cities and police have nothing to do with sanitation or crime, that's just a bunch of pretty little lies they're saying as a matter of course. I don't think they even pay attention to what they're saying anymore because they've just been preaching to the choir for too long. At the heart of it, I think they give these bullshit reasons for their actions because they know that if they were to tell the truth the protests would go from "peaceful" to "armed."

The MSM is making a big deal about the camp in New York being routed as though it were a blow to the heart of OWS. But OWS is so much more than Zuccotti. OWS has no structure, no figurehead, no home besides Earth. Occupy Wall Street is global, it has no uniforms, no weapons, and it's identity is anonymity. The face of OWS is the face of the poor, the middle class, the people who are working themselves to death and finding they have nothing to show for it.

The status quo can clear out four huge camps and a whole lot of smaller ones and it won't matter. The 99% have nothing to lose anymore. Clear them out? They'll move and come back. Arrest them? They don't care. Try to silence them? They'll scream louder. Try to use unethical tactics? They have cameras and you'll be caught in the act.

I once heard a quote from The Merchant of Venice. I'll paraphrase it:

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?...And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

By working to make sure nothing changes, by working in support of the richest among us, we are being wronged.

The Cusp of Revolution

As I sit here, I am reading an article about city officials jumping to use the deaths at or near Occupy Wall Street encampments as scapegoats to dismantle the camps even though, in the case of the shooting as opposed to the suicide, the people involved in the violence weren't linked to OWS at all. And while the suicide was tragic, explain to me why one man's suicide should mean dozens (if not hundreds) of other people should suddenly lose their right to protest?

As I read more, I also find that the common theme behind these evictions is the police have constantly been threatening arrests. And you know what I've noticed? Those threats mean dick to the protestors. Yes, they'll be arrested, but all the police will be doing is demonizing themselves in the public eye while they give the protestors a bed and a hot meal before releasing them to return to the damn protest.

In Portland, Oregon, just over 300 law enforcement officers from 10 different agencies were being faced down by better than 1,000 protestors. You know what this tells me? The cops should feel god damn lucky that the protestors are determined to remain peaceful because they outnumber the cops 3 to 1.

And the city governments keep paying lip service to the protestors. Here, let's see what they say, and then translate it into English:

While Adams expressed sympathy for protester goals, he said the Occupy movement needed to evolve beyond encampments "in order to get the kind of reforms we need."

Translation: You're embarrassing us and threatening our campaign donations.

In Oakland, California, the scene of previous clashes between police and demonstrators, city hall issued a third eviction notice on Sunday. It warned protesters they faced "immediate arrest" if they continued to camp out in the city's plaza and parks.

Translation: We don't like you, so we're gonna keep issuing impotent threats and preforming impotent actions because we were never told that it's a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The city offered alternative emergency accommodation at two local area homeless shelters, and laid on a shuttle service to one that was not within walking distance of the encampments.

Translation: We're so out of touch with what you're saying that we think you're all homeless, even though more OWS protestors are employed than Teabaggers.

In St. Louis, Mayor Francis Slay has warned protesters they have to decamp but has offered to continue talks to find a permanent place for the protest.

Translation: We'll find you a place to set up, so long as it is far, far away from the public eye because, after all: out of sight, out of mind.

When the city governments, owned and operated by the status quo, are fed up and trying to force the protestors away, then the protestors are doing something right. And when you have undercover OPD shills saying the Oakland Police Department has gone too far, and comparing the government's actions to what happened in Birmingham, Alabama, then you'll come to realize, as I have, that the United States is on the cusp of Revolution. Maybe not armed, maybe peaceful, maybe the kind of Revolution that comes with a whisper and not a bang, but we are on the cusp of Revolution right now, whether those in power want to admit it or not.

Whether we push forward into a full-blown Revolution, however, is up to us. We'll have to let history be the judge of this era.

Valley Wall Pictorial

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, here's ten thousand worth.

OWS, Cities and the First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and a part of the Bill of Rights. You'll hear a lot of idiots screaming Freedom of Speech and citing the First Amendment in arguments that don't call for it and I am convinced that a lot of people can't be assed to read more than that when the Bill of Rights is taught in school. And it seems often, people think the First Amendment only covers the freedom of speech. There is more to it than just freedom of speech. It also gives you the right to print what you want without fear of government retribution. It allows you to gather in large groups to give a united voice to actions you disagree with. It allows you to demand that your government put right an injustice to yourself or to others.

These are things often forgotten but which must be remembered.

In Atlanta, GA a while back, Mayor Reed gave the Occupy Wall Street protestors until November 7th before they'd need to leave. Then he reneged on that and sent the police to clear the protestors out.

Over in Oakland, CA they ended up launching tear gas, flash/bang grenades, rubber bullets and 12-gauge beanbag rounds at the protestors. The reason sited? "Health and sanitation issues." So for those reasons, this is how they deal with it.



And the part that shows us the cops either think people are too stupid to think or that they just have more ignorance than is justified for police officers; when asked about the use of flashbangs during the protests, the was;

No, the loud noised that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown at Police by protesters.

Boy, people will fall for a lot; the world is flat, rabbits chew their cud, Piltdown Man shows science is wrong, Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. But when the video evidence is right in front of you and available for everyone to see?

Man, that's just fucking stupid to expect us to buy that.

Other mayors have tried to get OWS protests disbanded by saying that camping in city parks was illegal. This is where we need to remember that the Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of our grievances.

It does not set a time limit on how long those assemblies can last.

Florida's Welfare Drug Testing Halted

A law in Florida would have required anyone on welfare to submit to drug testing. The law, however, was blocked by a Federal judge.

Gov. Rick Scott, who signed the measure into law on May 31, touted it as a way to ensure taxpayer money isn’t “wasted” on those who use drugs. “Hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs,” he said then.

But, in her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state’s argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove “special needs” as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.

“If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need,” Scriven wrote, “the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment.”

This is one of those things you'd expect the people who crafted the law to maybe give some thought to before drafting and passing it. Maybe, just maybe, being poor isn't reason enough to force needy people to piss into a cup.

But then again, that is the kind of mentality that views being impoverished as a crime. This is what they spend your tax dollars on.

How to Legitimatize a Movement

It seems that Occupy Wall Street is, far from my expectations, not dying out but actually growing. As it turns out, it's growing to the point that it's going international. There are protests cropping up in New Zealand, London, Frankfurt, as well as all over the USA. With this profound of a political movement cropping up it was only a matter of time before someone got the bright idea to call it the "Tea Party of the Left." Privately, I have to roll my eyes at pundits trying to associate the two , but it seems to have struck a nerve with the Teabaggers.

[Link]
The tea party isn’t about to make room for the new protesters on the block.

Big tea party groups have launched an attack against the Occupy Wall Street protests, challenging the line that the anti-corporate uprising is the “the tea party of the left.”

Tea partiers and their allies are looking to de-legitimize the protests circulating in the anti-Wall Street crowds, hunting for evidence of union ties, fringe rhetoric and bad behavior — ranging from news of arrests, to recordings of incendiary speeches, to tales of littering, drug use and debauchery.

They’re posting what they find online, like a photograph of a demonstrator apparently defecating on a cop car that has circulated widely, and are accusing the mainstream media of ignoring extremist elements.

This actually makes me chuckle a little. The idea of such an astroturfed movement getting a bug up their asses over another movement is hilarious in its own right, but what is just rib ticklingly funny is what one commenter pointed out;

Michael DiZazzo
"Nothing legitimizes a protest movement nearly as much as it's opposite number attacking it. True believers are terrified by the sight of their opposite pole."

Rarely do I find myself in agreement with a comment on Yahoo News. as I said before, the Yahoo News comments section seems to be a bastion of conservative knuckle draggers. However, this seems to be one of those rare comments that cuts right to the truth of the matter. What happened when the Arab Spring started sweeping the Middle East? They were largely written off until people started to actively attempt to discredit them or put down the movement through force. So guess what Mayor Bloomburg tried to do.

"If Bloomberg really cared about sanitation here he wouldn't have blocked portapotties and dumpsters."

On Thursday afternoon Occupy Wall Street called an emergency General Assembly down at Liberty Plaza to deal with the announcement that Friday will see a cleanup of the park by the City, starting at 7 am. Representatives of Brookfield, the company that owns the park, said in the clean-up notice that everything left behind will be thrown away. On Thursday it was also revealed that Brookfield had sent a letter to police commissioner Ray Kelly asking the NYPD help clear out the protestors. A group of New York civil liberties lawyers warned the CEO of Brookfield that forcing protestors from the park violates their first amendment rights, stating, "Under the guise of cleaning the Park you are threatening fundamental constitutional rights. There is no basis in the law for your request for police intervention, nor have you cited any. Such police action without a prior court order would be unconstitutional."

And guess what he failed to do?

A planned cleanup of the Lower Manhattan park that has been home to the Occupy Wall Street movement since September 17 was delayed just hours before it was due to begin by Brookfield Office Properties, which manages the publicly accessible park.

The move averted a possible showdown between police and protesters who viewed the cleanup as a ploy to evict them. Protesters loudly cheered the decision, and several hundred set off marching toward the city's financial district.

Police arrested 14 people, but there were no widespread disruptions.

"This development has emboldened the movement and sent a clear message that the power of the people has prevailed against Wall Street," Occupy Wall Street said in a statement, estimating more than 3,000 people had gathered in the park.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in his weekly radio address on Friday, said his office was not involved in the decision to postpone the cleanup.

"My understanding is that Brookfield got lots of calls from many elected officials threatening them and saying, 'If you don't stop this, we'll make your life much more difficult,'" said Bloomberg, who added that he did not know which officials had called the company.

So thank you, Teabaggers, 1%ers, and righties of all stripes. You've done more to validate OWS than anything the left ever could have done.

Liberalism and the Second Amendment

During a discussion today I've been reflecting on the idea of being a liberal left-wing progressive and yet also being rabidly pro-Second Amendment. A lot of people would view this as such a contradiction (no, not the Starburst commercial kind), the sort of contradiction that would make a person do a double-take so quickly they'd hurt themselves.

In my own mind, it's not a contradiction to be a progressive and also pro-gun ownership. I'm a believer in responsible, legal firearms ownership provided a person can be safely trusted with a firearm through appropriate background checks as described in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I'm not going to trot out the old "Hiter was pro-gun control" nor am I one of those people who'll be able to keep a straight face when told it's an obsolete Amendment because we don't have to worry about the Redcoats anymore. I don't expect to ever need to take up arms in a civil war in the same way I don't believe I'll need them to fight back against commies or terrorists; but I do believe it is my right to be able to own a firearm should I need one in a worst case scenario. In this case, I'm thinking along the lines of a mugger or home invasion or stalker or any number of far more realistic threats we face every day in the USA.

Also, what do you expect me to use for the zombie apocalypse? A butter knife?