Category Archives: just thinking about….

Baby Hope (Angelica Castillo, R.I.P) and the many faces of evil.

Evil is the UNSPEAKABLE harm  that humans do, KNOWINGLY, JOYFULLY and REMORSELESSLY, to others who are NOT in the position to fight back. That includes harm done  to children and animals, women, the elderly. But also the harm  done to a NATION’S CITIZENS who can’t  IMMEDIATELY fight-back it’s government and big corporations’ immoral policies which destroy lives under cover of law.

There are many people who fit the bill, whether in politics (both democrat and republican parties) or in our regular communities. I give you here only TWO of the many and most disgusting and scary faces of EVIL:

Conrado is the monster who tortured and assassinated a four years old child. Today we know the child’s name was Angelica Castillo.The other face, well, he’s so evil that his citizens call him Darth Vader. His crime: he went PUBLICLY to demand from our Congress a law to give the government (him) the right to use TORTURE as a form of interrogation to extract confessions from ‘enemies of the state’. Of course, we know that EVERYTHING permitted in wars has come to plague the peaceful American civilian life and that, now, dissenting groups and individuals are considered by the State as ‘enemies of the state’. Jose Padilla was the FIRST AMERICAN to experience the government’s right to torture its citizens . The precedent has been set, followed by President Obama’s NDAA, a right to kill a US citizen without habeas corpus.

When the ‘beacon of freedom’ sees torture as something ‘useful’ and moral, as the ‘right thing to do’ to others, the Conrados of the world have triumphed over our hearts.

I think it is our moral duty to be as OUTRAGED about our government’s torture policies as we are about this beast who tortured that child.

They are one and the same expression of evil, in different faces and with different accent.

The ‘GOP’s big schism’ deception Part 2: ‘it’s the Fed, stupid’.

Yesterday I was divagating about what really is at stake in this so-called GOP schism we are witnessing.

My theory is based on the shared believe between the fans in the bleacher section of the political park (liberals, progressives, non-Obama’s leftists and GOP party’s libertarian base: the mob) that the worldwide elite is trying to institute a ‘one world corporate party’ and that the Federal Reserve must go.

This is my theory:

The real division in the GOP is between the elite and the GOP’s libertarian ‘bleachers monsters’ (the TParty mob who is NOT a billionaire, it is the party’s working class and other paleoconservatives [see Wikipedia]) who want to eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank. That’s the issue, the FED. It’s NOT the debt, it’s the FED.

The billionaires may disagree on how to CONTROL the debt, but the MOB wants to eliminate the source of the debt: the Federal Reserve Bank. Last Tuesday (Oct 8) Obama stated in his press conference this elite’s fear (his own fear too) that the TParty mob would succeed in eliminating the FED:

“Well, the same thing is true if I’m buying Treasury bills from the U.S. government, and here I am sitting here — you know, what if there’s a Supreme Court case deciding that these aren’t valid, that these aren’t, you know, valid legal instruments obligating the U.S. government to pay me? I’m going to be stressed, which means I may not purchase. And if I do purchase them, I’m going to ask for a big premium.”

As I was listening to him say that, I wondered from where the hell that statement came from. It seemed so out of place, a ‘conspiracy‘ itself. It finally hit me: it is the anti-Fed movement the elite and Obama is fearing. It is getting so much strength in the party that it is becoming a threat. That comment hints that there may be a TParty mob effort to go to court to challenge the FED and the US debt.

Yesterday I said that the interests of the elite, represented by billionaires of Wall Street, worldwide banking and financial corporations and many other gigantic corporations influencing our Congress and president, are the SAME despite seeming differences in how to achieve their goal: total control of the US government’s functions by the corporations. You may say it’s a done deal this control. Yes, except that it’s covered under the mantle of ‘democracy’. In a democracy there must be more than one political party and the people must be seen as the all-important voters who make the ‘real decisions’. Most of us know or are already having a feeling, that this democracy is a myth.

On the other hand, there is a movement in the USA that believes that the Constitution was violated when the politicians gave (in 1935) the government’s power to issue money, which Constitutionally belongs ONLY to the government, to the banksters. 

The TPartiers in the bleachers suicidally agrees with the elite in EVERYTHING else that is the GOP’s agenda: eliminating the social safety net and social security, lowering taxes to corporations, etc etc etc. The difference is in that the bleacher monster, as part of its plan to eliminate the FED, wants to declare the US national ‘debt’ INVALID, non-payable because the debt is ILLEGAL.

The elite in the GOP and democratic party are ready to take the blanket from the top of our heads. A one party, controlled by them to control the functions of government is ripe for picking.

The Koch brothers hijacked the ORIGINAL TParty probably with the purpose of dividing the GOP using the most extreme of the bleachers monster, giving then a picture of a party that needs to be EUTHANIZED like a rabid dog. Divide and conquer by breaking the GOP and leaving ONE party: a ‘democratic party’ that can easily assume the positions of the defunct GOP.

The elite, Wall Street and Goldman Sachs all come across as ‘moderate’ in this DECEPTION. Of course, they don’t want their bank closed.

Goldman Sachs is in hot waters with the scandal of the Federal Reserve worker who proved that he is involved in deception and conflict of interest, lying to the people who invests with him under his guidance. The Fed ordered her to deny and delete the evidence. This elite controls EVERYTHING.

The elite doesn’t want some TPartier in T-shirt threatening it’s toy, our  government.

So, this is my theory. It’s not so far fetched.


On criminals, terrorists, and crazy men Part2

Yesterday I opened a post about my views on mental illness and dissent in the USA.Today I look into how this connection was continually been made for us in TV programs.

The entertaining ‘terrorists’

Springer, Geraldo’s crazy politics









Until 9/11, it was an imperative for the government, and the big financial interests it represents, to paint a picture of the USA as a happy nation, the spectator of a world in chaos, but not touched by it. The USA was above all that racket. We don’t have coup d’état in the USA, Kennedy’s assassination was the act of one and one man alone, no conspiracy was found there. It was a ‘common crime’. Neither did we have here racism a la South Africa.

Likewise, it was unwise to tag McVeigh as a ‘terrorist’; it would have messed with the idyllic vision of the US as a happy united people. There were NO TERRORISTS in the USA, land of the free; only crazy power-thirsty cultists, Nazis, Puerto Rican and Black separatists (meaning PRican liberation movement and Nation of Islam) fanatic sympathizers existed in our midst.

In the 1990s, TV shows like Geraldo, Ophra, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer helped paint the idea that these political groups and their views were laughable abnormalities, inconsequential and entertaining, not to be taken seriously. They could even be helped with therapy and kumbaya, as Ophra tried, because, after all, you have to be ‘crazy’ to be in one of these groups. Except that, what was crazy here was not the person but the political ideas of these people, the idea that the US government’s policies could be considered so oppressive by groups of people that they would choose to separate from it. (I’m not siding nor supporting any group here.); the idea that racism was coming only from the KKK and Black racists.

Political dissent in the USA was unofficially diagnosed FOR the public opinion through these programs as a crazy act, an irrational act. Officially it was diagnosed as ‘oppositional defiant behavior’ in the DSM bible. We were allowed to think that the root of these people’s problem was ‘social’: bad parents, poverty (usually the ‘white trash’ and ghetto members were the invitees), etc but never was the US politics and policies considered as factors. Are you crazy? Hell no! There was seldom serious discussions about these problems.

All these TV programs, my friend, represent the corporate art of ideological propaganda’.

Then came 9/11, the game changer.

“Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; “against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Tomorrow I will discuss this new definition of ‘terrorism’ and compare it to the old one (in the earlier post for you to do the comparing on your own) and get into the scapegoating of mentally ill people as terrorist. It’s right there, in the highlighted part. Can you see it coming?

On criminals, terrorists, and mad men.

Before 9/11, a person who went out on a ‘killing rampage’ was viewed by the public as one who “went postal’, a ‘bomber without a cause’ or a ‘serial killer’. In other words, it was considered the act of a ‘common criminal’, not a political or act of war.  After 9/11, that same person committing the same act is considered ‘a war terrorist’ and ‘a crazy person’, to boot.

When and how did we decide to re-classify our definition of ‘common crime’ as ‘an act of war and terrorism’, and to link it to mental illness? Who helped shape our collective ‘perception’ of ‘imminent’ danger?

I will share my views about how mental illness has been scapegoat, after 9/11, as terrorism in a veiled effort to control political and social dissent in our nation, which our current president has declared to be in “a permanent state of war”.

Parts of this post will go under the headings:

The politics of crime: crime in the US before 9/11

Our a-political perception of crime

Mental illness to the rescue

THE POLITICS OF CRIME: Crime in the US before 9/11

Before 9/11, mental illness was seldom considered the sole culprit of acts of violence in our society. Acts of violence by ‘civilians’ (killing co-workers or loved ones) was seen by the public mostly as something done by someone who ‘lost it’ or who ‘went postal’. Implied in these descriptions is some sort of collective understanding that the person committing the crime was under the pressures of work, finance, love betrayal, or other social problems; the public was able to point to a ‘social context’ behind the act of violence. Because of this awareness of a social context behind crimes, the citizens of a town, city or state could look for a social solution to the problem of violence, not for a ‘war’ policy or armaments solution.

Also, pre-9/11 there was an unspoken social ‘agreement’ on the distinction between a ‘common criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist was a foreigner ‘at war’ against us but not here in the USA, and home-grown violence (by civilians) was just ‘regular crimes’. Thus, terrorism = act of war.

In other words, before 9/11 there seemed to be no ‘political’ crimes in the USA, acts of violence to advance political beliefs.  Seldom did the media or law enforcement agencies (at least publicly) tagged as ‘terrorism’ crimes that were clearly political in nature. Not even Timothy McVeigh, member of a separatist militia movement, was tagged as a terrorist, not until way after 9/11. The killing of a US President was NOT considered a political or even as terrorist act either. It was tagged as the act of a fanatical ‘lone-wolf’, who probably had been manipulated by the commies, a fact which would have made the crime a political one and a conspiracy. (But we never really went there, did we?) The ‘unabomber’ was a ‘rebel without a cause’, even a ‘mad genius’ but not a terrorist, certainly not a ‘political crusader’ for the animal rights movement, a fact many people don’t know about. And, finally, incarcerated political dissidents before 9/11, like imprisoned Puerto Rican liberation movement members, considered themselves ‘political prisoners’ (not terrorists) but the federal government had perennially refused to accept them as such, tagging them instead as ‘criminals’, until recently.

All of these examples of reluctance by the government to use the ‘t’ word, ‘terrorism’, fly despite the fact that it (FBI) had, before 9/11,  a clear definition of terrorism:

“the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals,against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is a political definition of terrorism, based on power struggle between the government and other groups of people to “furtherance of political or social objectives”. It required a “group” (“two or more”), and purposeful coordination of acts was implied. But we hardly knew about this definition, didn’t we? Why? This is in part because of the “two or more” requirement, given that our criminals were almost always portrayed as ‘lone-wolves’.


The one thing the government (federal and state) must protect above anything else is…no, it’s not ‘the nation’.  It is the public trust in the government’s institutions. No trust in government = dissent, polarization, and power struggles for change in the way the government leaders run the nation, be it through peaceful civil disobedience or violence.

The public’s perception of ‘crime’ is shaped by the government’s criminal and justice systems policies and politics, among others. (It’s interesting to me that the first American group to be labeled as  ‘terrorist’ was the animals rights movement in The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, something unrelated to war or Al Qaeda.)

So, it is conceivable that, to protect the public’s perception that the majority of the people are satisfied with the government’s policies, that there is no significant dissent within the society, the actions of dissenting groups are described as ‘regular crime’ and ‘crazy’ to devoid them of its political statement against the government policies. It reeks to Nazism, doesn’t it?

So, in a nation engaged in a ‘permanent war against terrorism’ and in enacting political, economic and repressive policies (police and surveillance state), which attack the middle class (leaving de-facto only two classes, the elite and the poor), how is the government going to label the natural political acts of dissent and resistance of those affected by its unfair policies and the impact it has on the social fabric?

Tomorrow: the pre and post 9/11 perception on crime, and mental illness to the rescue.

A Zen moment.

A zen moment, brought to you by a child: (Un instante Zen, cortesía de un niño:)

“Mommy, mommy” sobs Tommy, “I got so frightened. I woke up, ran to your bed and you weren’t there. Then I went to dad’s bed and he was not there. Then I ran into my bed and I was not there.”


“Mami, mami”, lloraba Tommy, “Yo tenía tanto miedo. Desperté, corrí a tu cama pero no estabas ahí. Entonces fui a la cama de papi pero el no estaba allí. Entonces corrí a mi cama pero yo no estaba ahí.”



Today’s funny post

Charlie Chaplin : his message to humanity.

From The Great Dictator.