Pet Peeves

Every single election we go out to the polls. We do it with grievances. We do it with a sense of hope. We do it because we expect the people we elect to office can be responsible enough to make decisions that impact our lives and the lives of our neighbors. That is NOT an unreasonable expectation to have given the levity of the positions we put these people in. I have been noticing however, an ever growing and disturbing trend among our leaders.

This trend, is really nothing new to the game of politics. I have stated previously that watching election ads is rather akin to watching a pro wrestling promo. The patriotic music in the back ground, the testimonies of other well known politicians vouching for the candidate, the “What I can do for you that the other person can’t”…or in a lot of cases, the smear that dares to ask, if the opponent is really someone you want representing you. It’s SPECTACLE, and it doesn’t, nor has it ever been confined strictly to elections. Part of the problem many voters note is how politicians will talk a big game, but then fail to deliver on the goods.

There are many reasons for this. In a lot of such cases if the action would center around a hot topic of debate that has voters divided, there then becomes a risk to the all important seat of power for a political party. Any solution could put that seat in jeopardy for the number of voters who would be against it, and so they TALK a BIG GAME and put the minds of one section of voters at ease on the idea that their representatives actually are thinking about the issue that concerns them, while keeping the other section at bay by not actually DOING ANYTHING about it. As of late that natural element of SPECTACLE in politics has started reaching, in many cases, new LOWS.

Now that I have set the stage of the topic at hand I want to take you back a few months to, a post I put up here in April. In full transparency of my previous take on the topic, here is the link to that post for you to view.

HB481 Georgia vs Hollywood:The Heartbeat Bill

In the course of that post, I stated that, in the past, I had tended to side with the Pro-Choice side of the argument and I stated why. I will not repeat that part here. What had earned my approval of this bill, were couple points.

First, it addressed many points from both sides of the abortion debate, which I found impressive because, unlike standard political fare, it was willing to tackle one of those HOT DEBATE TOPICS with actual policy. With the current mentality of zero tolerance, or compromise, I found HB481 to be something people could look to, if shown in practice, that could walk back that destructive mind set.

Second, While there was an intent based in moral, the bill itself followed far more of a scientific stance. We saw the bill utilize reasoning based in medical science. We saw the bill offer an additional incentive in the form allowing the expected mother to claim an unborn child for tax purposes, which has the potential to really help financially at a time when it would come in handy, something that could not be done without law recognizing an unborn as an individual.

Like most things in politics, it was prone to the SPECTACLE. Already gaining the ire of Hollywood celebrities, within days of being officially signed into law, many other such bills began springing up in different states across the nation. These bills, in virtually every case, failed to consider the argument from both sides of the debate. The end result was what appeared to be a massive push to eradicate abortion and encourage the overturn of the Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court. This decision, I might add, would have the potential to prevent abortion even in cases where the mother’s life is in danger and without gurantee of the child’s survival. In other words, every extreme that has always made me side with the Pro-Choice end of the debate.

Even in that flurry of bills that surfaced, I stood in defense of Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill, often arguing the points where it was greatly different from the others that it was being lumped in with. What I started noticing, was that my own sentiments were not being mirrored, as far as I could find, from the state of Georgia itself. While it is perfectly understandable for a state to not come across as telling other states how to run, doing so would not be a requisite for explaining how your state’s bill is different from those it is being mistaken as being similar to. This, one would think, would also be a wise move, if your intent had in fact been to find the working balance in a hot debate topic in the form of policy. Again I state, if there was such an occurrence, I wasn’t finding it and the SPECTACLE, became that of a great push to eradicate abortion.

HB481 is now law, along with other new abortion bills that have no interest in hiding their intent. My faith in Georgia was shaken, but it actually was not until this very morning, the morning of 7/21/19 that would encounter, what was for me, the straw that broke the camel’s back. Remarkably, though not surprisingly, it was another instance of SPECTACLE in politics, that had nothing to do with abortion, though it did involve a representative of Georgia’s State government.

Enter the seemingly endless fight, between Democrats and Republicans at the Federal level. For weeks we have Democrats squabbling among themselves, before a series of Tweets from the president created yet ANOTHER SPECTACLE. A SPECTACLE, that has seen the people who despise him, once more call out the dreaded war cry of racist. A SPECTACLE that has his supporters giving him praise for the “CLEVERNESS” of drawing attention away from the Raise The Wage deal introduced by House Democrats to raise minimum wage in America, while keeping the focus on the progressive lot in congress, who are keen on creating their own SPECTACLE around their own social media campaigns while that campaign and any investigations they do, ultimately FAILS to bring anything to the House floor in the form of policy, even as the president recently signed into being a change in Asylum policy that would prevent people from passing through other countries that offer asylum to come seeking it in America. Sounds convoluted, I know. What it does not change is the fact that even if you wanted to claim that it was racially motivated, a deterrent for seeking Asylum from those passing through multiple countries, would in theory decrease the number of people to be detained by stripping them of their reason for trying and thus alleviate the inhumane conditions caused by overcrowding.

There it is folks, agree with the change in Asylum policy or not and what it does not CHANGE, is that, as POLICY, it is a more solid move towards decreasing the inhumane conditions of detainees at our border than MONTHS of investigation and propaganda pushing on social media. I might also add that in spite of months of investigation and social media ranting, we saw it take only 2 days for this progressive lot to present a resolution on the floor of the House urging congress into action over the president’s string of tweets. Clever I will admit. There is however another stark and grim reality around it and we saw that in the form of a “Send her back” chant from the crowd at one of the president’s rallies a couple days back. A chant that had THE PEOPLE at each other’s throats. A chant that even many of the president’s own party refused to support, which in turn saw the president denounce it….Even as he stood smiling throughout it’s duration. It’s the X-Factor in political power plays through SPECTACLE and the manipulation of what we see and know and react to as a people. It is the EFFECT that SPECTACLE has on the people themselves.

Following that rather chilling display at the president’s rally, a Georgia State representative, Erica Thomas hits social media with a claim that a white man told her to go back where she came from. A grim look at how SPECTACLE inspires the actions of The PEOPLE. That was yesterday, amid a slew of Tweets trending the hash tag #IStandWithErica on Twitter……..This morning a different story is being told. The man, who, considering he and Erica were standing side by side arguing on camera as the story unfolded, was apparently the ACTUAL MAN from the altercation. A Cuban- American, Democrat and claimed staunch Anit-Trump person. The altercation, as it turns out was a simple dispute over the use of the express checkout line at a store and apparently no racially charged comments were used….. SPECTACLE….Feeding off of SPECTACLE.

So, a blatant lie. A Hate Hoax in a year that has now seen TWO such incidents, this time by a member of the Georgia State government. I have to tell you in all honesty; when I see a member of any government, just basically promote a sense of civil unrest among the people for the sake of it, through SPECTACLE, I lose trust in that governing body and it’s decisions.

In a country where there ARE people screaming “Send Her Back” and people having melt downs at the sight of HATS…. An article of clothing. A country that I fully expect to see more fist fights at polls during the 2020 Election than at any point in our history on account of the emotional instability all this SPECTACLE is causing, It all begs the question. What is this, ANY OF THIS, doing FOR the American people? What does making factually erred Tweets for attention and presidential candidates urging big tech to silence political rivals REALLY DOING FOR US? I will close on this note. If WE don’t start doing more to COUNTER all of this SPECTACLE in politics, it will DROWN OUT EVERYTHING, we were always taught to be proud of and everything we have always been taught people made grave sacrifices for in the CACOPHONY of the NOISE and the QUAGMIRE of the FALL OUT. It will drown these things out, as assuredly as it has whatever the ORIGINAL INTENT may be behind any of these TACTICS.

I told everyone there would be a match up today……..Heh heh, Do you all believe everything you read on Twitter? What’s the wrestling term for that….A mark? While everyone goes and blows up the Box Office today for the opening of The Avengers: Endgame, I’m choosing instead to show my support for multiple topics of importance. Not only does my refusal to spend money on the big Disney machine act as a personal stance against putting all of our corporate eggs in one basket, but it also gives me a moment to show you, through my own version of geekdom, my support for other topics and projects. Enter…. My VUDU wish list of other things I fully intend to spend my money on and you will get a picture of what this post is going to be about.

On April 18th Jason Mamoa put up a video on his Youtube channel to raise awareness for recycling and limiting the pollution caused by plastics. On the level, I tend to be more of a naturalist than an environmentalist. It seems with the type of coverage we get of the topic that no one with sense could even know where to begin. Activists paint a picture of a massive death toll attributed to climate change, while the U.N. tells us that the hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic is slowly repairing itself. Activists follow one branch of scientific belief that says things like climate change will increase the number of deaths from insect born diseases, while other statistics show that since 2000 the number of global malaria infections are down 37% while malaria related deaths are down 62%. Activists will tell us we are one or two generations from certain death due to climate issues that the government needs to step in and do something about. 11,000 years ago we had an era that is called The Ice Age, so while climate change is very obviously real, it is also very clearly a natural process that can lead to massive changes. What it ultimately begs the question of is, how much stock do we give 200 years of scientific development and political power playing in the study of something that has been constantly changing for literally millions of years?

So why am I all poo poo on the “We’re ALL gonna die over the climate change.” argument while supporting Jason Mamoa and his stance. The answer to this is because I believe in the power of arguing visible viewpoints over hypothetical scare tactics. I lived in the state of West Virginia for over 25 years from 1990 until 2015. One of the most historical tragedies to ever hit the state was the Buffalo Creek flood of 1972 in which the collapse of 3 coal slurry dams caused a massive flood that killed 125 people. In the years that I had lived in WV there was another accident involving the mines and that was the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that killed 29 miners after a coal dust explosion caused collapse. The CEO of the company would go on to be sentenced to a year in federal prison when it was found that he had willfully violated mine health and safety standards, cutting costs that had ultimately contributed to that disaster and the death of 29 people.

Had enough yet? Fast forward to January 2014 to the incident known as the West Virginia Water Crisis. On January 9th, 2014 over 7,500 gallons of
4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was leaked into the Elk River a few miles upstream of the West Virginia American Water intake which left over 300,000 residents in 9 counties without potable water for 9 days. The incident also saw 169 people end up getting checked with non-fatal illnesses, 14 of those, bad enough to be hospitalized. The DEP investigation would find that negligence in the storing of the chemicals was the biggest contributing factor. Are we seeing a pattern here? I have seen and experienced firsthand the ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT left behind by big corporations when they want their greater profit over conducting their business in a responsible fashion and while it may not be the death of us in a handful of generations…..Maybe, it has been both fatal and costly to the health of the general population surrounding them when the straw breaks the camel’s back so to speak. These were just a couple examples from one area, that I could personally speak to my knowledge of from being present when they occurred. In short, I am not so quick to dismiss the “tree huggers” when they are RIGHT. Which is also why I believe making the environment a political issue is rather asinine. The moment you take scientific findings and apply this one left and this one right, you ensure that the purpose behind the study loses it’s meaning. All of these findings are meant to be taken in as a whole to help science piece together the puzzle.

A can of soda can be bought for about 50 cents out of a vending machine in a lot of places, and a lot of times, the price is generally dictated by the brand rather than the cost to produce. A plastic bottle of water from a vending machine tends to cost about as much as a bottle of soda, or about a dollar to 1.50 now while it’s true you get more, about 8 ounces more, usually, there is little showing a justification for that price difference. What does price indicate? It indicates just how cheap both forms of packaging are, only one is 100% recyclable, the other is chemical based and is not 100 percent recyclable. Sounds like a practical solution to me and what is even better is that, not only is aluminum better environmentally than plastic, but because it counts as scrap metal, even just bagging your cans and setting them out for scavengers to collect also gives a hand to people who are generally in need of money, so that gives it bonus points in my book. So my take is a simple take from a simple geek…..I stand with Aquaman.

Goodbye Drogo I SHAVED

I just wanted to pop on here and give everyone a real quick run down on things coming up in the near future for The Unspoken Ethic as well as an update on future endeavors.

On the list of upcoming topics, I will FINALLY be discussing THE WALL…And no I am not referring to the classic Pink Floyd album, I mean the border wall that has been proposed and is currently being funded for the Southern American border and why I don’t particularly agree with it, while offering a little fantasy alternative idea. I also have lined up a more singular look at the political meanderings of Hollywood elite a I examine one in particular Chris Evans. Beyond that we will be taking a step back from news sources for a bit and start focusing a little on just the basic behavior patterns we see not only out and about, but also a study in online behavior patterns as well.

Okay now for the FUN PART. As you know The Unspoken Ethic is not only about confronting popular view points, it is also about covering things from an uncommon perspective, a sometimes controversial perspective, or simply a new perspective from what you are seeing and hearing from everyone else, or at least a majority out here in the internet world. In the interest of this, if you post a Tweet regarding a news story or behaviors you spot that you find interesting and have your own take on it hash tag it #MyUnspokenEthic and I will save it. Periodically I will post YOUR Unspoken Ethics here on the blog and for the ones that I find really interesting, you may even get your own blog post centered around it.

Now for….what seems to still be a little ways off. I am STILL trying to work out creating video content for this site and for my Youtube channel. Hopefully I am not far off from getting a break that will allow me to start implementing some of my more ambitious plans. I will keep you posted as things develop.

To read Part 1 Click on the link below.

Media Tactics, The Unspoken Ethic v Mainstream Media v Independent Media Part 1: Jim Jefferies

Now first off, if you read Part 1, you’ll notice that in Avi’s video he stated that the interview had actually been filmed, a few months prior to being aired. I did not mention this because I saw no time stamp on the footage from the hidden camera. I say this now to point out that I have no intention of confirming or denying any element by which I can find no real point of reference. That went for his claim that the interview was filmed months prior to, but that will also include what some may try to argue against Avi. This argument is strictly based on what we see in the evidence presented. For instance he has a connection to far right activist Tommy Robins, Facebook had stated that he had urged violence in a post he was warned about as a reason for him getting banned. He denied making such claims, and try as I may to even find some manner of screenshot of the exact post Facebook was referring to in there statement, I could not find any. As such, the notion that Avi is hypocritical in his statement of being against violence through his connection to Tommy Robins is a point that I have yet to find evidence of.

What Avi is most guilty of is a tactic known as fear mongering. He cites the violence of the Muslim religion and the growing numbers of Muslims migrating into Australia. Yet here is a little known fact. There have been 5 terrorist attacks in Australia since 2016 and this term is used loosely as the leading to 3 deaths committed by people who had been inspired by the Islamic state. Another fact and this may surprise you, is that there has only been a single terrorist act committed in New Zealand since 2016 and that was the shooting at the ChristChurch Mosque last month. These numbers come from Esri Story Maps focusing on terrorist attacks.

Indeed for a religion that accounts for 1.8 billion people the world over The majority of the 35,244 fatalities caused by Muslim inspired attacks since 2016 have been against other Muslims and tend to be centralized in the Middle East and Africa. A case can be made for Europe however that number has had a steady decrease over the last 3 years.

Over all the number seems to be going down in general. But for one who claims a willingness to debate and change his arguments if proven wrong. This video displays the very opposite behavior. In fact you might argue that he makes the same type of blanket statements, that many of us argue over the mainstream media making and with the same lack of intent to take much of anything said to the contrary seriously. You can even see his mannerisms and actions in this interview as being of the same type of antagonistic vein as his hidden camera video revealed Jim Jefferies to be.

Daring Jew Avi Yemeni Confronts ‘Giant’ Muslim

So here is my argument to BOTH. I don’t know what either of these guys do, but it ISN’T Journalism. It’s undisciplined, unruly, and when it isn’t emotional based leaving doubt as to it’s integrity, it’s cold and calculated, but both operate with the same goal in mind. Not to inform, but to affirm our biases. They are both guilty, of caring less about giving the truth than they are about trying to manipulate how people take it in.