Alright, here I have no moral point or logical attack on doublespeak. There is no implicit criticism, and only the obvious implication following. Mostly I post this because it amuses me.
I found an article regarding the recent bitcoin theft (found at <http://www.scmagazine.com/mt-gox-ceo-lied-about-massive-bitcoin-theft-according-to-alleged-hackers/article/337613/>). This interests me because I find it hilarious bitcoins- an online form of currency composed entirely of computer code, whose value seems to be determined by the same methods as cause stock market booms and crashes- are considered to be worth money.
People reportedly spend cash or credit on these insubstantial strings of digits. Money is symbolic for your work- for example, grain you might have grown with your own hands and livestock, furniture you built yourself from wood you carved, or whatever- and something expected to barter food, or rent, or something else tangible. In exchange you may as well trade your work for a box of air, all because someone said it’s worth the work you invested. The fun part is you find another person with a box of air slightly smaller and you both agree the volume of your box is more valuable, and you agree on how much.
As of Monday, 10 March 2014, this source says a single bitcoin is worth $620. I can’t get over how binary code is valued so highly, and how anyone could use it as currency when it cannot be secure. The very nature of bitcoin is digital. There is no impregnable defense against theft if the object of theft its itself the same material as its container. Yet, people smarter than me trust it and seem surprised at their vulnerability. Really?
Someone else sees the humor in this. <http://www.gocomics.com/scottstantis/2014/02/26#.Ux_D0s7DWdV> Is this not perfect?
This is likely to upset some people, but that is not my intention. I merely want to present a few obvious points about the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as brought up in the online article regarding the alleged shooter’s father. Here’s the link: <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/father-sandy-hook-killer-you-cant-get-any-more-evil-n48546>.
Firstly, in this article M. Alex Johnson doesn’t keep to the best methodology of journalism in presentation. The most common and practical way to begin a news article is what is called a nut graph- wherein the main points it means to present all given in the first four sentences, with all the pertinent general information; in this case, the names and dates of events referenced for the article. One can write an article with a different style, and since the topic of this one involves something too outdated to be news, a human interest piece is fitting. Even so, the necessary information can be included early in the article. If discussing matters in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting of December 2012, the author should state the legal name of the alleged shooter and the date of this event- to say nothing of the assumption made this man was the shooter. There was no trial to prove it, and the only evidence there is comes from the executive enforcement and victims’ families (some of the federal and police authorities displaying a remarkable lack of professionalism, and the victims’ families sometimes behaving very strangely for grieving people). A biased source should not be trusted at face value, regardless of what it is. Why I distrust law enforcement in this incident follows.
Johnson neglects to mention the alleged shooter’s name nor the date of the Sandy Hook shooting. I can only assume it is sloppy polishing on the part of the writer. Other facets of the article seem to reflect editorializing rather than reporting, as well.
Next, let’s consider what is being said. The father of the alleged shooter in Sandy Hook, Peter Lanza, vilifies his “evil” son (presumably Adam Lanza, since referring to the dead accused by a single name is easier to detract from him as a person) and the article hints at the possibility he was not afflicted solely with Asperger’s Syndrome. This is said to be a possible cause for his actions in December of 2012. At no point was it conclusively proven or mentioned before this time, as far as I have heard, so the effect muddles known facts of the shooting.
Let’s consider this. Peter Lanza admits to not even seeing his son for two years prior to the shooting, but is still confident his son couldn’t be more evil: his words, evidently. The father’s opinion is moot, it has no bearing on the shooting no one needs dredged up in the dearth of new information, and Peter Lanza only presents the unverifiable supposition his son could have had a more serious mental ailment than known. Yet, if this series of interviews is widely accepted, this moot commentary on factors of Sandy Hook shall become a factoid worked into the future myth of the event itself. Put simply, the word for that is disinformation.
Lastly, the fact is contingent factors of the shooting remain impossible to prove. We have a suspicious lack of concrete data confirming he was the shooter, what caliber of firearm(s) was or were used by and against him, and because there is no body we can never know the mental capacity of the accused shooter. Conveniently, the only reliable witness to remark on Adam’s mental state was the first fatal victim. The father shows up long after the fact to corroborate he was wrong in the head, when he is neither a medical professional nor familiar with Adam at the time he died.
Apart from other things about investigating the shooting being suspect, it is downright wrong for the public to be denied objective evidence in regard to an incident like this. I am not saying any random citizen should have the right to tromp across Adam Lanza’s grave or take a scalpel to his corpse. I am saying if this person is accused of such a heinous crime, there should be proof outside the word of an unassailable figure- especially when the body of the accused denies any evidence about the incident due to its legal absence. One of the oldest criminal evasions of history is to blame the dead and hide the proof the crime was not perpetrated by this defenseless entity.
We have no way to know this is not happening here. If that is what is happening, we can’t trust any sanctioned statements from authorities, victims’ families, or deductions made from incomplete analysis. Also, should there be something very different about the nature of Sandy Hook or its accused which changes the truth of the incident, it is- at best- being used to manipulate the common person into a mindset; worst case (you all expected this), it was a fraud.
Say what you want about what did or did not happen in Sandy Hook in 2012. But no one can effectively deny the investigation was lacking or deficient, and there are serious problems with how it is being treated now. No one should be reviving the grief for those truly hurt by it when nothing is gained. It is unforgivable if this is done with the affect of confusing the facts in peoples’ memories, besides.
This is a turbulent time in the Crimea. I can’t pretend to understand the depth of political issues there- I have heard and seen considerable data to suggest the Crimeans would rather be Russians than Ukrainians, however true the statement- and I am no diplomat with any experience in Eastern European relations; however, the action Vladimir Putin undertook by providing armed forces to what is effectively rebellion demands certain basic points are said. Certain parties on WordPress seem to ignore or downplay the obvious affronts perpetrated by Putin’s actions here in favor of arguing how it could be a permissible action in time, or focusing on details which should be addressed only after the main point is made to the world so an adequate response is given. I would counter the omissions and disinformation here, if they are such things and simply not poor analysis of the situation.
1. There is no legal defense for this coup of Crimean local government. Ukraine is the sovereign nation here, and it has been usurped. If Putin is being honest and those are not his military forces in uniform, his own agents didn’t cause or contribute to protests there, and there isn’t some sort of seditious Russian presence in the Crimea comparable to the S. S. of the Third Reich (which is a stretch for me to believe), then he willingly and knowingly provided arms and uniforms to elements of a neighboring, unannounced secession. In this case, Putin did so without clarifying this when the bloodless uprising began, and lacking any recognizable warning to the Ukraine, the United Nations, or the Russian people who may face the political backlash for any such action. If ethnic Russians are really that hard-pressed for help and Putin gave it, he had no reason not to lobby for their interests in legal, public ways first.
This is, naturally, provided all those uniformed troops just across the border from the Russian military engaged in wargames are not Russian troops proper without insignia to give Putin’s forces the plausible deniability. This would make it problematic for any other foreign powers to engage them in attempts to help Kiev: convenient for Russia because (we’ll pretend) they are not technically involved, and convenient for the uniformed forces in Crimea because they have disregarded civil liberties in their takeover. It is hard to charge people for crimes if no one can be sure who they were when citizens were unfairly searched or beaten for disagreeing with this change in political leadership.
2. Putin’s attitude is consistent with previous Russian military actions to bordering states committed during imperial Russia and the Soviet era- when buffer states were prizes for the contemporaneous autocrat in power. He has been widely regarded as a leader without regard for the lives of his people, let alone those of other nations. (I remind the reader of hostage crises, sunken submarines, and a curious string of Russian terrorist bombings during Putin’s first presidential campaign.) He is a documented thief with what manifests as a particular form of kleptomania, which is not only criminal, it is also outrageous a person of such authority would be so petty and impulsive. It is fairly obvious Putin has no regard for the democratic rights of Russia, either, so if the Crimea is annexed there is little hope of the ethnic Russians being any better off with Moscow than Kiev anyway. In short, the president of Russia is a despicable human being and should not have any bearing in the future of Crimea. The Duma, the U. N., Kiev, and the local Crimeans should cooperatively contribute to the future there, not anyone obeying the wishes of the mafia czar.
Note I do not presume other large, “democratic” governments are remarkably better in this- the United States, for instance. I live here. I know we have no moral superiority in this regard.
3. The latest tumult comes with historical examples of dire implications. By invasion and/or by willful assistance to a rebellion, Putin’s Russia annexed South Ossetia and stands to take legal control of a second bordering province in less than five years (whether or not Russian military forces were themselves responsible, in the Crimea). These assumptions of power could apparently occur without any effective response from those states injured by these actions or from the international community. Countries are rarely so blatant about actions like this in geopolitics, and one noteworthy example of when one was involves the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938. Anschulss there was allowed because Neville Chamberlain and others thought Adolf Hitler would be satisfied with just that little bit more of land. History proves this was not true.
Personally, this means of expanding the Russian state is also just crude. At least the U. S. has a policy of invading out of some pretext we establish first. Putin’s ways of broadening his control lack any sort of historical finesse. No preemptive liberation is as believable unless there are at least some indications of political repression being made known to the world before the invasion. Putin could at least try to polish his technique.
The world cannot sit idly by when nations like the Russian Federation are led by men like Putin, and decide to rebuild empires for vanity or ambition. The international community should have stopped the United States from invading Iraq for the same reason; it should have stepped in when South Ossetia was taken; and it should do something now in the Ukraine, at least to ensure the Crimean majority is really at the heart of this matter. If it is, and there really was no other way to break free of a repressive Kiev, its leaders should still be punished for the civil liberties they infringed unnecessarily. If Russia is involved, the Eastern European bully must be taught to respect its neighbors. Maybe if this is done, even the U. S. may start paying attention and behave itself a little better. If Russia and America started playing nice with the world, that would that not be an improvement?
Here’s a simple one, to actually get a response from anyone on the Internet. Reply only if you are intelligent and rational, please.
I saw a newspaper editorial ask what was so wrong about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). I do not dispute the advantages of expanding available health care to the uninsured, or the corollaries included to make it more reasonable. But beside the fact this is a great imposition on small business owners across the nation, the essential sin of this legislation is one simple fact: the individual mandate robs citizens of a REPUBLIC the choice of whether or not they buy a product sold by their GOVERNMENT. I’d call that a bit undemocratic. If there is a sensible rebuttal to this point, please enlighten me.