lucrivet-blog

[lucrivet-blog]

My Blog has Moved

To check out my recent Blog Entries, please check out WRITE ME A LIFE at https://writemealife.blogspot.ca/ or at https://www.lucrivet.ca/  Sorry for the inconvenience!

[lucrivet-blog]

Rights Worth Fighting For!

Photo by Luc Rivet

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. Martin Luther King, Jr. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/protesting.html

I am a Canadian, and I am entitled to all the rights and privileges afforded to all citizens of this great country!

01- I have a right to food and adequate shelter as embedded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

02- I have a right to live in accordance with my own personal and religious beliefs, and to not have those beliefs trampled upon, or used against me in an oppressive way.

03- I have a right to my opinions and to express them freely and openly, just as you have a right to have and express yours.

04- I have the right to receive the best possible education regardless of my, or my family's financial means.

05- I have a right to meaningful work with adequate compensation so that I may provide for myself and for my family.

06- I have the right to be properly cared and provided for if I am sick, or injured, and unable to work.

07- I have the right to vote, regardless of home address or lack of it.

08- I have a right to expect that my Government will represent me and individual people like me over corporate greed that conflicts with my rights.

09- I have the right to hold my government accountable, and to not be criminalized for doing so.

10- I have the right to assemble, and protest on public land, without interference from authorities, because I am the public and I own this land, and because I have elected you to represent me, not to restrict me.

These are my rights, as a Canadian, and I shouldn't have to fight for them, but I do.  Every day I am forced to fight for at least one, mostly more of these rights.  That is why Canada, and the world for that matter, is under Occupation by its citizens, and that is why we need to keep up the occupation and the fight until there is no need for any Canadian to fight for any of these rights.

[lucrivet-blog]

Who is Jim Flaherty anyways?

Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.  Dalai Lama 

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says that Canadians have nothing to protest about as the "Occupy" protests set up in Canadian and International cities.  Oh really!  And what exactly are his credentials that allow him to make such a determination.  One would believe that Canada's Finance Minister would be speaking from an economic background, but then, one would be wrong.  It seems an Economics Degree is not a necessity to be the Chief Financial Officer of a country, and even less of a requirement to be seen as speaking with any authority on finances and the economy.

Jim Flaherty is not an economist, and apart from being both a Provincial and then Federal Minister of Finance, has no financial background to speak of.  Before politics, he was an ambulance chasing lawyer with a firm that specialized in accidents and personal injury litigation.  While this might prepare one for the politics of getting rich at the expense of the poor, it certainly doesn't qualify one to determine whether or not the poor have a reason to complain, or protest.

Minister Flaherty's position on poverty and homelessness is well recorded from the days he sought the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party's leadership.  He promised that as leader he would make homelessness illegal, and commission special police officers to round them up and force them into designated shelters.  As a lawyer, he should be aware that to hold someone somewhere against their will is imprisonment, so it is fair to say that he would hide the problem away so he wouldn't have to deal with it.

This very same man, who preached locking away the homeless, who has no economic background, and who earned his fortunes preying on the very same people he now wants to silence, wants us to believe that everything is just hunky dory in Canada, and that the protesters are protesting on a full stomach.

Minister Flaherty, we are tired of subsisting on your table scraps!  We are tired of Corporations, which are the minority, dictating conditions to the people, who are the majority!  We are tired of Government which ignore the wishes of the people in order to push their own self-serving agenda.  We are tired of all the bullshit, and Canada, as much as any other Country needs to be occupied so that Ministers and Governments like you realize that we won't take it anymore.

[lucrivet-blog]

Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour, A Criminal With Intent To Enter Canada

Mug shot of Conrad Black. Date 15 December 2005 

Author United States Marshals Service

Source

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/business/conrad-black

Permission Public domain, it's work of United States Marshals Service.

"Equality before the law in a true democracy is a matter of right. It cannot be a matter of charity or of favor or of grace or of discretion." 

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge, sometime in the mid-20th century

http://www.nlada.org/News/Equal_Justice_Quotes

 Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour is set to return to his cushy jail cell on September 6th, where he will waddle away 13 months making phone calls, receiving and sending emails, and socializing with his tolerably friendly and quite interesting fellow upper echelon criminal friends.  But he quickly points out that this is not a country club.

What is the biggest problem Lord Black must face in prison, well, I will let him tell you himself. "It's quite Spartan, and you are subject to the authority of unskilled labour frequently masquerading as figures of much more natural or earned authority than they actually possess." 

Lord Black, who renounced his Canadian citizenship to accept a noble seat in the British House of Lords, after then Prime-Minister Jean Chretien expressed that it wouldn't be appropriate for a Canadian to hold that title, was convicted of fraud in the US back in 2007.  His smugness and arrogance made every court appearance worthwhile following and his six and a half year sentence probably would have been much less had he not so vehemently put down the court and its officers.  Some of the charges were dismissed on appeal but none the less, the Lord and Master of fraud and deception had the privilege of calling a new type of castle "home" for an extended period of time.

As Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour begins his final vacation at his all inclusive resort, at the expense of American taxpayers, there is no doubt that the political wheels are already in motion to re-establish his Canadian Citizenship.  Given that Black has been a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party during his previous days as a Canadian Citizen, and given that the Conservative Government has a majority government, it is quite probable that Black will be able to move right into Canada immediately following his release from the Golden Gated Country Club, but could this welcome ever be justified.

Recently, the Harper Government decided to expel what it viewed as unwanted Canadians, by branding them as War Criminals, despite the fact that many of them were not facing any charges in their own countries, and none of them would be facing charges under the ICC.  These were citizens who were granted residency in Canada until the Conservative Government decided that we don't want criminals in Canada.  Lord Conrad Black is not a Canadian Citizen, he is a convicted felon and if Harper is true to his "No Criminals" policy, then Black should not even be granted entry into Canada, let alone Citizenship status.  

"Section 19(2)(a.1) of the Immigration Act of Canada states that persons convicted of an offence outside of Canada, that would be an offence under Canadian law, cannot be admitted to Canada. Criminally inadmissable persons can, however, apply for a special permission to enter Canada. This special permission is expressed by a Minister's Permit." 

There should be no preferential treatments for the Conrad Black's of the world.  Equal Justice should prevail at all costs, but unless Canadians take a stand now, and tell Prime-Minister Stephen Harper that Conrad Black is unwanted in Canada, the scales of Justice will be tipped in favor of the rich and powerful once again, and before long, criminals with a fat wallet will inundate Canada.

[lucrivet-blog]

Canada! Democracy or Oligarchy?

Photo Credit: Author John Wilson Bengough, died 1923 PUBLIC DOMAINE

Courtesy of WikiCommons

“An oligarchy of private capital cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society because under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information.”

 Albert Einstein

Quote courtesy of ThinkExist

Most people are contented to believe they live in a democracy, yet few of them know just what a democracy is.  A country is not a democracy just because they hold regular, free and fair elections.  There are principles which must be adhered to for a country to truly be a democracy, and the absence of these principles, or even limitations set to these principles make seemingly democratic countries not so democratic after all.  I, for one, do not believe I live in a democracy!

Canada is a great country, which could be made even greater by a truly democratic government, but its current form of governance is more of an Oligarchy than a democracy!

In a democracy, the people are the highest authority, and governments listen to the people and governs according to their will.  In an Oligarchy, a small group of people, in our case, Big Business types, determine national policies, and their will supersedes that of the people.  Corporate interests are enforced upon the people, and laws are put in place to protect those interests, regardless of any harm they may bring to the public.

In a democracy, the people have the right of association, the right to assemble and to protest.  These rights, although embedded within our constitution, have been limited by government to a point where the government can now dictate who we can associate with, where we can assemble, and whether or not we can legally protest its decisions and actions.  Again, the rules that government follows in limiting those rights, are set by a relatively small group of corporate types who have only their own interests at heart.

In a true democracy, a government does not view an electoral win as an endorsement of autocratic governance for 4 years.  Every elected official has a voice, and a duty to represent their constituents, not the autocratic dictates of a Prime-Minister whom Canadians didn't elect.

In a democracy, Government can not, and does not change laws to suit their own agendas, legislation is studied and passed only when it is of benefit to the people it is meant to protect.  The courts decide guilt and innocence, free of government intervention, and the Supreme Court has the final say in whether Government legislation and actions are in accordance with the constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Our current government has circumvented laws and constitutional principles, and does so in such a way as to bound the hands of the Supreme Court.  Example in point, the branding of unwanted Canadians as war criminals to expedite their deportation and deny them their constitutional right to appeal.

No, I do not believe this country I love, and call home is a true democracy.  It is superior to many countries but it can be made better.  I will never give-up on the principle that the government belongs to the people, and I will fight with all my might, in a peaceful manner, to defeat this Oligarchy that has overtaken our Government.  

[lucrivet-blog]

Harper, the social rabbit has a disclosure to make on this Episode 2 of Rants & Raves

[lucrivet-blog]

My first ever video blog, Rants & Raves.  This is part 2 of 2 of Episode 1.

[lucrivet-blog]

My first ever video blog, Rants & Raves.  This is part 1 of 2 of Episode 1.

[lucrivet-blog]

Is Harper Creating A New Breed Of Canadian War Criminals?

PHOTO CREDIT: CIMG1450_MorgueFile.jpg  By: imelenchon

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/531095

invasion of privacy n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: 1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage. Lawsuits have arisen from magazine articles on obscure geniuses, use of a wife's name on a hospital insurance form to obtain insurance payment for delivery of a mistress' baby, unauthorized use of a girl's photo to advertise a photographer, and "tabloid" journalism treatment of people as freaks. There are also numerous instances of governmental invasion of privacy such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiling files on people considered as political opponents, partially corrected by the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. The right to privacy originated with an article in the Harvard Law Review in the 1890s written by lawyers "Bull" Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invasion+of+privacy

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982(80)

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Rights andfreedoms inCanada1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Fundamental FreedomsFundamentalfreedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the pressand other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.

Life, liberty andsecurity of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Like it or not, the views and opinions I post on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social network or social media site becomes sort of private domain, and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  The exception of course is, if I take reasonable steps to ensure that only a select few can see it, and someone other than me passes it on without my consent.  If my government, or police for that matter want to learn more about me by perusing these sites, power to them, there is nothing I can do about it.  But that's not the type of privacy that concerns me about the Harper Government's proposed Lawful Access legislation.

Anytime anyone in authority is given the right to arbitrarily access information that ought to be private in nature, without a warrant, Canadians as a whole should tremble.  Apart from going against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this type of legislation contributes to potential abuses by those in authority, (actually this legislation itself represents an abuse of power).

  We have already witnessed the Harper Government's abuse and misuse of power against its citizens, through their disclosure of names and photographs of "suspected war criminals" whom have never been, and likely will never be prosecuted in any jurisdiction.  Why brand them as war criminals when no other jurisdiction, not even the War Crimes Tribunal has branded them as such?  For no other reason, than to circumvent the letter of the law, and allow the Government to deport "undesirable Canadians," without affording them the right to appeal their deportation.  With Bills C-50, C-51 and C-52, the government is blatantly attempting to change the law to suit its purposes.  It is attempting to create War Criminals within Canada, of those who oppose it, and to facilitate their immediate arrest and prosecution based on illegally obtained information which would be inadmissible under the current judicial system.

The fact that the government will be able to mount a case on me, using nothing more than my internet browsing history, scares the hell out of me.  I am far from a dangerous fellon, but as a writer, I often visit sites of groups I do not endorse or support, in the name of research.  I will click links because of my curiosity, or because something caught my attention, but the government does not see my facial expressions as I read its content, and even if by chance I agree with what I read, so what, I am just reading, not breaking laws.  Does this make me a War Criminal in the eyes of my government?  Will I be charged and convicted of treason simply for my thoughts?  Harper's own views on Canada during his National Citizens Coalition, Canadian Alliance and Reform Party days are much more treasonous than anything I may agrree with, so do I have the right to have him prosecuted for his own anti-Canada sentiments? Fair is fair right?  What's right for the goose, is right for the Gander!

[lucrivet-blog]

The Man We Call Prime Minister presents Stephen Harper's ideology through his own Quotes.  Too many Canadians don't know enough about him, and how scary his Government can really be.  I've used my own photography in the video, but the first 2 photos are not mine, they were downloaded from stock photo sites.

[lucrivet-blog]

politico:

Michele Bachmann gave Elvis Presley, whose songs she uses at her events, happy birthday wishes today while she was in Spartanburg, S.C.

Unfortunately, today’s the 34th anniversary of the day he died.

Do Americans really want this woman representing them? Scary, huh!

[lucrivet-blog]

Law Can Be The Greatest Injustice

PHOTO CREDIT: DSC_0046.JPG  By: kconnors

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/615551

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

~Lysander Spooner, Trial by  Jury 

SOURCE: http://www.quotegarden.com/

I may not agree with everything he says, I actually disagree with most of it, but Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) has what I consider to be the most accurate definition of what the law is meant to be, "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

Bastiat, a French economist, activist and politician, was an early proponent of free trade, and despite his strong views opposing perversion of the law by governments, maintained an equally strong view that socialism must out of necessity transform into communism, (guess which ones of his views I vehemently oppose).  His views were mostly ignored in France, which at the time seemed to be moving towards a socialist government, but gained favor and respect in Capitalist countries, and he is still respected and revered by those countries today.

If his definition of law became the standard for any law to exist, then I would fight vigilantly to defend law as justice, but law has become much more than the protection of persons, liberties, and properties, in fact it has equally become a suppressor of them, and for that reason, law and justice have become two distinct and separate animals.

In the quote that precedes this entry, Lysander Spooner hits the nail on the head when he says that, "...there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law."  Autocratic governments, and even Majority governments for that matter, have been given a blank check to write and enforce laws which support their ideology, and criminalize opposition to it.  How then can anything written in law be considered justice?

It is often times more just to break laws rather than to follow them.  This is not an endorsement of breaking all laws, murder, destruction of property, violence and theft are real crimes, and laws against them are certainly justified.  It is the laws which have no purpose but to oppress people that need to be challenged.  If a group can only protest where law permits, and has to wait until they receive the proper licence then such laws are oppressive and worthy of opposing.  If laws favor one segment of population, criminalizes poverty, or lead to any form of segregation, then these are not true laws, by Bastiat's definition, and real justice comes in having those laws repealed.

As a rule, I focus more on protesting laws and policies than on protesting people or governments, because my experiences have taught me that simply removing a person or government solves nothing in the broader sense.  People and governments can easily be replaced by similar people and governments, but if they are forced to repeal laws and policies by the electorate, the message remains regardless of who they are.  I also firmly believe that much more is achieved by educating people than by fighting them.  

Information sources:

The Law - Frederic Bastiat

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf

http://bastiat.org/

[lucrivet-blog]

An Open Letter To Future Generations

It is up to us to live up to the legacy that was left for us, and to leave a legacy that is worthy of our children and of future generations. Christine Gregoire 

August 15,2011

Dear Precious Ones,

This letter results from my contemplation about the legacy my generation has left for you.  I pray that as you look out your window, you see lush fields of green and beauty of which I can only dream of.  I pray that food and adequate shelter is in great supply, and that poverty no longer exists.  I pray that peace prevails in all countries, and on all continents, and that all citizens, regardless of religion, creed, nationality or sexual preference, live together harmoniously and respectfully.  This is the world that I pray you live in, but I also fear that despite the noblest intentions, our generation may have brought a far less pleasant legacy.

We have taken a beautiful planet, and carelessly exploited every natural resource it provided.  We have filled the air we breathe with polution and smog, all in the name of corporate profits, and have polluted the soil with materials which are toxic, non bio-degradable or both.  We have destroyed countless acres of forest in the name of development and as such have contributed to the extinction and near-extinction of animals we professed to love.  We have shamefully turned our back on this great planet, and left you to clean it up, if it's not too late.

We have traded away our future so that the affluent around the world may thrive, and in so doing, we have given up our good jobs to third world country where goods can be manufactured cheaper.  Jobs are scarce, and those that become available hardly afford a single person the opportunity to survive, let alone a family.  All this would have been less demeaning to us if the jobs enhanced the lives of people in third world countries, but they have not.  As in our own country, it is the elite of government, and the industrialists who have benefited while working conditions, living conditions, and human rights of their people deteriorated.

We the people of some of the greatest nations, have taken up the cause, and while some gains have been made, much remains to be done.  In frustration and anger, many have taken to violence, some to revolt against capitalist governments, others as an opportunity to accrue materialistic things which they have been otherwise denied.  This is where I fear we may have failed you.  We, and the blame must be shared equally among the haves and have nots, and among the indifferent and the activists, have become a nation of violence, hatred and tyranny.  Albeit with good intentions, we have started to teach our children that violence and abuse are okay as long as they help us acieve our goals which may at times seem not achievable.

We oppose wars by declaring war on those who support it; we extol our rights to freedom of speech and expression, while trying to deny others the same rights; we fight for privacy by violating the privacy of others, yes even of those we claim to be fighting for; we destroy homes, businesses, and lives in the name of freedom; and we have created a fear within our citizens which in turn further restricts their freedom.  Yes, our intentions have always been noble, yet even the noblest intentions can become skewed.

I am truly grateful if because of our actions you are enjoying a world where peace, harmony and love prevail, but if as I fear, your world is worst then what we have been living, I am so truly sorry, and sincerely apologize.  May history afford you the privilege of looking back on our actions, and learn from our mistakes.  If our legacy to you is not one of prosperity, peace and love, then I hope it shall be knowledge that violence and destruction do not work as tools for change.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Person

PHOTO CREDIT:  DSCN7104.JPG  By: grietgriet

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/701281

QUOTE SOURCE: www.brainyquote.com

[lucrivet-blog]

This is the country my Prime Minister now wants to be friends with!  No trade deal will improve conditions for its citizens under this illegitimate government.

[lucrivet-blog]

Who Speaks For Them - Is The Internet Really A Digital Democracy

PHOTO Source: Talking_with_himself.jpg   By: Darnok

http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Exclusion/

No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself

 Henry David Thoreau

QUOTESOURCE:

 http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Exclusion/

Is the medium the message, as Marshall McLuhan put it?  If it is, what message is getting out there, and by whom?  Is the internet egalitarian, and is it a digital democracy?  Where does the information come from, and how reliable is it?  The answer to these questions may surprise you!

I don't profess to be a professional blogger.  I am a writer, thinker, and amateur photographer, and my medium at this time is my blog.  I'm not a specialist, I blog about anything and everything that catches my attention, and usually from a socialistic point of view.  I am an activist, and I tend to advocate in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the injured and the inhumane, but am I the best voice to do so? Probably not!

The best voices to represent all those causes are the people trapped by them, but unfortunately those voices are hardly heard, and even if they could whisper a word or two, chances are they would be overlooked.  Why?I have vast interests, and I love to learn, yet I am far from being an educated man.  The internet is my school, and like anyone else I have my favorite sites that I turn to time and again.  I stumbled upon a couple of articles relating to the internet, social media, and social networks, and these articles, referring to scientific studies, best reflect my own beliefs.  Both articles are from Science Daily (1)  You may or may not share my views, and that's okay, but what they reveal is worth considering.

The first article is based on a study by the University of California, Berkeley (2).  The study concludes that the lower and working class are underrepresented on the internet. The study points out that post-secondary graduates are much more likely to blog, post videos, pictures, comments or ratings than high school graduates.  Jen Schradie, author of the study and Journal Article concludes that social media divides are wider between the haves and have nots then between age gaps, and that social "social web is becoming more of a playground for the affluent then a digital democracy!"  I agree!

Another article refers to a study authored by Itai Himelboim, assistant professor in the UGA Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication for the University of Georgia (3).  The study concludes that while there are a variety of opinions and ideas expressed on social media and social network sites, very few get the attention.  Himelboin points out that "2% of those who start discussion threads attract 50% of the replies". Why?  Because there seems to be more of a fascination with following those who have the most contacts, rather than the content itself.  Other key points he concludes, relating to popular posters are that: -only 12% of their messages represent their own comments and opinions, the rest is imported

-60% of the content they import comes from traditionsl media -8% comes from blogs and personal websites

-15% come from online-only news sources

-and 6% comes from Government and Non-Profit Organizations

According to Himelboin, high quality content is necessary but not sufficient to attract attention.  He states that, "the internet could never meet the lofty ideal of bringing equality to the masses."  High quality posts with only a few replies never become a hub because, "online discussion groups tend to become hierarchical, and like in school, everyone wants to be friends with the popular kid!" He states that probably because people only have so much time to spend online, the hubs grow at the expense of the less connected counterparts.

Many in the lower and working class are financially excluded from the internet due to lack of proper means to connect to the web.  A class of activists, myself included, proport to speak and think for them, but are we, or are we basically thinking and speaking as we think they should?  Maybe our first project should be to give them access to the medium so they can think and speak for themselves.  And if we do that, how many people will actually hear their voice?  Will we tune in to them and reply to them, or will we continue to connect with those who are already well connected, and continue our third party thinking?  The affluent already have a powerful voice, I think its time to listen in a different direction. SOURCES: 1- http://www.sciencedaily.com2- Article Source: University of California - Berkeley (2011, June 13). Digital democracy? Study finds elite viewpoints dominate online content. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110608094010.htmJournal Source: Jen Schradie. The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 2011; 39 (2): 145 DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.0033- Article Source: University of Georgia (2011, June 12). An egalitarian Internet? Not so, study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110610131904.htmJournal Source: I. Himelboim. Civil Society and Online Political Discourse: The Network Structure of Unrestricted Discussions. Communication Research, 2010; DOI: 10.1177/0093650210384853

[lucrivet-blog]

Syria's Youth Revolutionaries, by Journeyman Pictures

[lucrivet-blog]

“We have to make sure that the promises we make in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are promises we can keep, and there are various ways of doing that,” Mr. Romney said. “One is we can raise taxes on people.” “Corporations!” the protesters shouted, suggesting that Mr. Romney, as president, should raise taxes on large businesses. “Corporations!” “Corporations are people, my friend,” Mr. Romney responded, as the hecklers shouted back, “No they’re not!” “Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” When someone in the front row angrily suggested that “it goes in their pockets,” Mr. Romney, becoming increasingly animated, asked: “Whose pockets? People’s pockets!”

Mitt Romney, cheerfully laying out the “Corporations are people, too!” argument. 

Yeah… um, he’s right that earnings go to people. I just… I shudder, and I have trouble taking this seriously. Why do I get the feeling that Mitt Romney is an epic troll?

I report, you decide:

  I see a wee bit o’ the troll face in this one…

(via cognitivedissonance)