The end

A while ago I became some what unsatisfied with this blog.  That was when I had that long hiatus, during which I basically did not post anything.  After a while I realize that the reason I was not enjoying writing posts was due to some of the self defined constraints of the blog.  So to get around this I started a new blog, one that does not have much of a scope or stated goal, but is a free form place to write.  Because I wanted to know if anyone had any interest in reading what I had to write aside from being family and friends, I kept the blog anonymous, not letting on here that I had another blog going.  Then with the request for posts on Jesus and game, I started posting here again.  Sense then I have been double posting most posts both here and there, wanting the freedom to be able to write things that might involve something personal without having to fear offending someone actually involved.  But after going so long without that situation actually coming up, I've mostly gotten tired of posting the same thing in two places.  So I will not be posting on this blog anymore.  To read all new posts go to boochsays.blogspot.com, which is a better designed blog that receives many times the traffic that this one does.

Celebrate the Damn Holiday

During this time of year a lot of Christians get their panties in a bunch over the celebration of Halloween. I admit that I am a recovering panty bunching Christian myself. But the simple fact is that there is nothing wrong with kids dressing up in costumes and walking around the neighborhood. In fact, there is no action that we can take that is sinful.

Sins do not come in the form of actions. It is not movement of molecules, or transfers of energy that are sinful. If it were any different than rocks would be capable of sin. If it were different, to go back to the topic of holidays, you could map out the orbit of the Earth and highlight the Halloween portion of the orbit, saying “See here. This is the part of the Earth's orbit that is sinful.” Of course no one preaches that rocks commit sins, or that parts of the Earth's orbit is are sinful, while other part are righteous.

The reason for this is that sin is exclusively the realm of the heart and mind. This is why so many actions can be considered righteous in some cases and evil in others. This is why when Phinehas butchered two people by driving a spear through them, it was attributed to him as righteousness, but when Cain slew Abel it was attributed to him as sin.

This is also why Jesus preached a new standard of righteousness in Matthew 5:28 when saying that to merely lust after a woman is that same as committing adultery with her.

So what is the key? How do we determine motivations? Jesus tells us in Matthew 22 when saying what the greatest commandments are: to love the Lord with all your heart and all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. He then goes on to say “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” What Jesus is saying here is that any action taken with a heart or a state of mind that does not put God first, or that puts yourself before your neighbor, is sinful. And conversely any action taken with a heart or state of mind that puts God first, or puts your neighbor before yourself (without violating the putting God first part), is righteous. So by this definition celebrating Halloween may or may not be a sin based on the reason for celebrating it.

If you are decorating your house and yard for Halloween so you can look down on the yards of your neighbors as their yards are not nearly as cool, you are sinning. If you don't decorate your yard or pass out candy because you dislike your neighbors, you are sinning. And of course if you celebrate Halloween by mocking God and preforming satanic rituals, you are sinning.

Laundry list Christians (that is those who have a long list of things that you must do or believe before being a REAL Christian) are fond of pointing out that the roots of the holiday are pagan rather than christian. And they point out rightly that we are not to follow pagan practices. What they miss however is the relationship with follow pagan practices and motivation. The Israelites were forbidden to following pagan practices in as far as they were related to idol worship. The pagans also made a practice of eating, but the Israelites were not forbidden from doing that.

In basically all cases where the Israelites were forbidden from partaking in pagan practices there is a direct idol worship link. Take for example Leviticus 19:28 “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” This is often cited as a reason to not getting tattoos. But this is not some incitement against all bodily marks, it is condemning the practice of ancestor worship. If you play football and you put dark marks under your eyes to cut down the glare, you are not violating Leviticus 19:28. Another example is Jeremiah 10:2-5 which is often cited to condemn Christmas trees: “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.” Again, the take away should not be that decorated trees are intrinsically evil but rock gardens are okay. What is condemned is the practice of worshiping trees as idols. And don't tell me that by singing “Oh Christmas Tree” people are engaging in devil worship. Appreciation is not worship. You should sooner condemn songs like “The Star Spangled Banner” or “America the Beautiful” as idol worship than a song like “Oh Christmas Tree”. But very few laundry list Christians have that as an item on their list. The reason of course is that being a laundry list Christian is not about trying to serve God but rather to usurp God's role as judge.

So to bring it back to Halloween, boys that dress up in a bed sheet are no more worshiping ancestors, death, or the devil, than girls who dress up as princesses are worshiping the Queen of England. There once was a time when Halloween was about idol worship, but that time has long since passed. And as it is no longer intrinsically about idol worship, there is no longer anything intrinsically sinful about it. The fact that there is still some small sect of people who do practice Halloween as a pagan ritual does not change that. And for you laundry list Christians reading this who disagree, let me ask you this: if earth worshiping druids started to observe the Sabbath, even doing it on Saturday instead of Sunday like good laundry list Christians do, would you stop? If the answer is no, then unbunch your panties and go out and enjoy Halloween.

Just be yourself

When it comes to attracting women, the advise that is often thrown around is to “Just be yourself.” This is very poorly worded good advise. What they should be saying is to keep a consistent internal state, don't try so hard, and keep a strong frame. All of this can be interpreted as being yourself, but if you are a person who by nature tries hard to please, changes their internal state to meet others expectations, and tends to get pulled into other peoples frames, than you will validly interpret this advise as the staying the course which is not what the adviser meant, and not a good idea.

To better illustrate what I mean by keeping a consistent internal state, not trying so hard, and keeping a strong frame, consider the following example. When I was in college, I lived in a dorm that housed 32 guys. The floor was not divided up between age groups, so every year the seniors (hopefully) graduated, and a new batch of freshmen came in. And every year the freshmen were largely intolerable socially for the entire first semester, and about half of the second semester. The reason is that they came in all doe eyed, so eager to please, and so afraid that they would not make any friends. They would laugh heartily at every joke anyone told no matter how unfunny the joke, or how God awful the delivery. They would listen enthralled to any story, be up for any activity, and never let on what was really going through their heads. One of my friends and I were really into the card game bridge, and decided to teach some of the new freshmen how to play. We played regularly with them for that whole first year. It was not till a whole 2 years later that we found out that they dreaded every minuet of it. There was even one occasion where two of them saw us coming and one pulled the other into the stairwell where they hid under the stairs till we passed by. I only heard about this nearly 2 years after it happened.

This is the way that we tend interact with all new people (hopefully not to that extent), especially with men who are meeting new women. The issue stems from the fact that with new people we don't have any past validation of their interest in us or affection. So say you meet someone new and excitedly ask them if they want to go to a haunted house for Halloween and they say “Aren't haunted houses for kids?” To “be yourself” is to keep your state by remaining excited, not getting mopy about them insinuating that your a child, by not fall into their frame that haunted houses are for kids, and for gods sake by not being try hard and saying “Ok, than we can do something else! Anything else! I would do anything to be with you! please love me”. In short, don't be like a doe eyed college freshman so eager to please, and so needing to be loved and accepted.

Abortion is not a state issue

One of the most amazing logical disconnects people have is on the issue of abortion. First there is the most repeated straw man that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body. This of course is wrong because the issue is not her body, the issue is the body of her child. Some people might say that the fact that the child is dependent on the mother as a host body, or because it cannot live aside from the mother somehow changes the rules. Of course that is absurd. I don't have the right to kill people dependent on me, nor should I. In the same way dependence is not a justification for murder in the case of an unborn child.

Then you get these zany ideas (and when I say zany I mean Charles Manson devil worshipping level of evil) about how it should be illegal except for cases of rape and incest. This assumes that there is something wrong with abortion other than the fact that it is murder. If it is murder, than the child’s lineage should not matter. The cost to the mother is unfortunate, but just because someone inconveniences you does not mean that you have a right to kill them. Even in cases where the guilt lies with the same person who is inconveniencing you, you still don't have the right to kill them. Take the case of my friend who lived in an apartment where the residents above her broke their toilet and instead of calling the land lord to get it fix, just kept using it while the sewage dripped down into her bathroom. As they were also not paying rent at the time, they should have fit the bill in every way to make their killing permissible either by my friend or the land lord. The were inconvenient, and dependent. But still to murder them would be a crime, as it should. It's no different in the case of a child conceived by rape and incest, except for that it might be a bit more extreme, but the rules are the same.

The last major fallacy that seems to infect most of the right is the idea that murdering children should be a state issue. Of course if you don't mask the act of taking a baby and sticking a fork in its skull until dead behind terms like abortion, then the reason that it is not a state issue becomes perfectly clear. Its against the 14th amendment right now, without changing any laws, as the 14th amendment does not allow for denying anyone of their life without a trial, and in many states doctors are already legally forced to admit that unborn children are separate living beings. Even if the constitution was set up in such a way that it was a state issue, any leader who does not see protecting innocent life as something that comes before honoring some piece of paper, is not fit to lead a herd of lemmings of a cliff (ok I guess you still may consider them for US public office).

Game in the opera

One of the reasons that I started getting into game is that I really enjoy intellectual dissection. Before I learned anything about game, my tool for dissecting social dynamics would have been more like a machete, but after reading just a little bit about game (specifically about shit tests) I noticed that I had a much finer tool like a butchers knife. Now after several months of reading game blogs and a couple of books I've actually got a scalpel.

With my new found skills one of the most interesting things that I see is the the principles of game are followed by almost all the story tellers. Whether its books, TV, movies, or whatever, most romances go as expected according to game theory. This is interesting because most people when first hearing about game tend to brush it off. And yet while their conscious mind rejects game, their subconscious already is following the all of the principles. This just serves as more evidence that the rules of attraction are biologically imprinted on each of us.

Another thing that is interesting is being able to see story arcs in a new light. For example, I very much enjoy musicals. One of my favorites is The Phantom of the Opera. For those who are not familiar with the story, it revolves around a man who due to a horrible facial disfigurement present at birth, has hidden himself away in secret passages underneath the Paris opera house. In the book you get more details about his life, and get to know that his own mother was afraid of him due to his face being sunk in resembling a skull. I don't actually recall if he ran away from home or was thrown out, but either way he spent time in his youth as a freak in a freak show. He eventually escaped from there and actually went on to do some amazing things. As the book unfolds it becomes clear that he is truly a renaissance man, speaking contemptuously of Mozart as a composer, and achieving great things as both an architect and an engineer. On top of this, despite his disfigurement, he is quite gifted physically. He is almost supernaturally strong, and has a singing voice that far outstrips any of the performers in the opera. But because of his face he is unable to relate to any other human being and finds himself utterly alone his entire life.

So the musical takes place during the portion of his life where he is in the opera house trying to seduce a chorus girl as the Phantom. He gives her singing lessons, and does it all while hiding in the walls, completely unseen. Then as he tries to escalate the whole thing, trying to get her used to him by hypnotizing her and bringing her to his lair. In the end the relationship blows up and he tries to kidnap her and then lets her go, never to be seen again. But as I was last listening to the musical, I realized that more than because of his facial disfigurement, the phantom was rejected because he is a stone cold omega. One clear place this is demonstrated is in the song towards the end of the musical, Past the Point of no Return, which is a song written by the Phantom who is forcing the opera house to preform his work by means of terrorism. In the lyrics you can see a total disconnect between how the Phantom's mind works and how normal social dynamics work, and this disconnect is far more disconcerting that any facial disfigurement. Take for example the section

Past the point
of no return -
no backward glances:
the games we've played till now
are at an end . . .
Past all thought
of "if" or "when" -
no use resisting:
abandon thought,
and let the dream
descend . . .

The song is sung by the Phantom to the chorus girl, and the message is that in the play their relationship is done being playful, and now they are going to get serious and have sex. The total disconnect between sex and play inspires more dread than the fact that he wears a mask, and is clearly a sign of him being an omega. The song then makes a 180 during which the phantom declares his undying love, by softly and sweetly singing

Say you'll share with me
One love, one lifetime
Lead me, save me from my solitude

Say you want me
With you here
Beside you
Anywhere you go
Let me go too

These lyrics are fine by themselves, but the fact that there is no transition from the above internal state to this state makes the whole thing unsettling.

Specifically the phantom's problem is a lack of state. An alpha male knows who he is and knows what he wants and what he is doing. As such his inner state is stable. Other people can come up interact with him and if he was happy before he will continue to be happy, if he was angry he will continue to be angry, and so on, only slowly transitioning from one state to another. This is because his validation does not come from the people immediately around him at any given time. An omega on the other hand will rapidly jump from one state to another based on insignificant social interactions, often wildly misinterpreting small exchanges or even lack of exchanges. It is by being like this, far more than from having a disfigured face, that drove the phantom from society, and kept him from being able to build relationships with anyone. Of course it is a fictional story, but it is by following these game principles that the story actually works.

The West does not owe slave descendants anything

The thoughts that most conservatives have about reparations generally is either in the camp of thinking that whats in the past is in the past, or that due to disproportionate representation of black people on the welfare roles that we have already paid. What neither of these take into account is that fact that the idea that slavers went to Africa and rounded up a bunch a free men to use as slaves is almost entirely a myth perpetuated by the book and the movie Roots (which was both fictionalized and plagiarized by the way). The truth is that in almost all cases American slavers sailed to Africa where they met up with African slavers who sold them slaves. This should be evident by the fact that the native Africans were no more or less civilized than many of the Indian tribes that Western Americans came across, but they did not conqueror and enslave them. If they had run into Indian slave traders in any kind of large numbers (I certainly can't say that it never happened) there would have been just a large a trade of Indians as slaves, but the fact remains that it was unique to Africans.

This is not to say that all white men who bought slaves were righteous. The right thing to do would have been to free them as soon as they had been purchased. But consider another case. If you came across a man who was desperate for cash and in his desperation offered to sell you his wife's engagement ring which was clearly worth thousands of dollars and though you could have paid full price, you take advantage of the situation and buy it for only a few hundred. Is that the good christian thing to do? No of course not. But on the other hand, after the transaction is made do you owe that man anything. Again no. In the same way, American slavers did not owe the slaves that they purchased freedom because they did not enslave them. The truth is that those who made it to America where the lucky ones. There were certainly some bad slave owners in the south, but in Africa to treat a slave as being more valuable than a horse was the exception.

If your still not convinced consider another example. In Nazi Germany, Oskar Schindler rescued many Jews from concentration camps. The rescued Jews basically worked for him in his factory as slaves. At the end of the war did he owe them reparations? Of course not. By acquiring slaves he was saving them from the gas chambers, and is considered a hero for it. This is not 100% analogous with American slavery, but it demonstrates the principle. If life as a slave in America was not worse than life as a slave in Africa it means that Americans do not owe former slaves anything. In fact we did give them something: freedom. Something that they or their ancestors would not have gotten in Africa where the slave trade is alive and well to this day.

Abusing Chivalry

Most men have the idea impressed on them that they should protect the weak. This is particularly manifest in the idea that a man should never hit a woman. The assumption with this idea is that the man is always stronger than the woman, otherwise it would not matter, as is made obvious in that severely handicapped men generally are not held to this standard, but find themselves falling more into the societal category of women in that they should never be hit either. What is less engrained is the idea that if you are on the receiving end of special treatment you should not abuse it. That is to say if you are a woman or in some other societal role where men are to refrain from being violent towards you, you are also obligated to refrain from being violent towards them. But more and more its getting to the point where this second half of the unspoken contract is completely ignored. Take for example the recent event with Phoenx Jones, the costume wearing, pepper spray wielding, crime patrolling, self styled super hero.

Phoenix Jones Stops Assault from Ryan McNamee on Vimeo.

In this video he is patrolling with his side kicks and sees a street fight taking place under an overpass. He immediately runs in and breaks up the fight with pepper spray while his side kicks call 911. Then one of the girls who was watching the fight starts chasing him around attacking him with her high heel. Now clearly there is no question that Phoenix Jones could literally kill this girl with his bare hands if he so chose, but she correctly assumes that he will hold up his end of the societal contract while she flagrantly breaks her part of it. And the real kicker is that the only person charged with anything in this case was Phoenix Jones, while clearly he was on the receiving end of assault.

Contrast that with the more recent case of two women assaulting a man working at McDonald's (read the story here).

In this case the worker behind the counter questioned a $50 bill that they gave him and in response one of them reached across the counter and slapped him, and then threw herself over the counter while her friend started walking the long way around to reach him. They also assumed that he would uphold his end of the societal contract while they flagrantly broke their end. In this case they were wrong. He responded by grabbing a metal rode and beating them. One of them just suffered a fairly deep cut, but the other suffered a broken skull and arm.

It's interesting the way that the story is reported. They keep it in terms like there was an altercation that got violent. The sense is very much, something bad just happened and then the McDonald's employee went crazy. It never mentions whether or not the $50 bill they gave him was counterfeit or not. So most likely what happened is that they gave him a fifty, and as per store policy he had to check it out make sure that it was not counterfeit. In their intoxicated state the two women took this as a slight and then go on to assault the worker. He excessively defends himself. So unlike the phrasing in the news report that he attacked unruly customers, or that it was a fight the escalated out of control, this is a case where a man was attacked by two women and responded. It is totally inappropriate to say that he attacked them, as they were literally chasing him behind the counter with intent to harm when he “attacked”.

At least in this case all parties were changed with crimes. However if we keep going on with the idea that men should just sit there and take it or run away while women attack them instead of responding we'll get more and more of these incidents. Also, it needs to be made clear to women what their role in the societal contract is, as many of them clearly think that theirs is a place of privilege and the the contract only goes one way.

Accidental Alpha

When I still in school, before I knew anything about game, I was visiting my friend Ishmael back home over Christmas break. At the time he was renting a house with some other guys, one of whom I found out owned his very own gorilla suit. It was the best costume that I had ever seen, covering the whole body, with a fake gorilla head and everything. Being the 6'3” broad shouldered beast that I both was and am, the suit did not fit me. Ishmael on the other hand could get right in it. It was just to great a suit to not use, so I had to think of something. Prior to being shown the gorilla suit our plans had just been to rent a movie and hang out. So in the interest of using it right then, before I went back to school, Ishmael and I came to an agreement. After exchanging some “I will if you will” type pacts it was decided that he would wear the suit to the video store and I would lead him with a rope looped around his neck. If anyone looked at us funny in the store I was to lead him over to them and ask “Would you like to touch my monkey” after which he would offer them his hand.

At the store itself most people avoided eye contact. I think that we only actually went up to 2 groups, one middle aged couple, that was not that amused, and one lone attractive girl. As we were browsing the new releases moving slowly around the outer wall, we found ourselves in the same general space as her. She looked over at us bemused, and as per our pack, I walked right up to her maintaining eye contact and asked “Would you like to touch my monkey?” She laughed as she shook Ishmael's gorilla clad hand, and then instead of moving on as I was planning on doing, she started up a conversation. She was trying to find common ground at first asking what kind of movies we liked. And then she said something like “You know I bet my dog would really like you.” Now I really don't like changing my plans after I've made them, and so I was wanting to get on with our evening and spend time hanging out with Ishmael before I had to go back to school. So as she was trying to start up a conversation I was trying to disengage without being rude. As she was talking I was switching between looking at her to browsing over movies on the rack in front of me. Eventually we were able to get away and went on to watch a movie and share a few laughs before I had to leave. As we got out of the store into the parking lot we let out the laughter that we'd been holding in. We couldn't believe how much attraction had been generated while purposefully acting like annoying jackasses.

It wasn't till much later after reading about game theory that what happened started to make sense. The first thing that we were doing was peacocking. That is we were dressed in a way intended to draw attention. Secondly under the additional social presser of peacocking, by making the agreement to walk up to people and ask them if they wanted to touch my monkey, we demonstrated social dominance. If we had not done that and instead avoided eye contact and slunk away from people who looked funny at us, then it would have been less attractive than if we had done nothing at all. Finally, by being genuinely disinterested in actually picking anyone up, I naturally had alpha body language. The end result was that it was actually awkward not to go for the insta-date either by asking her to come watch a movie with us or inviting ourselves to her place to watch and meet her dog.  

Cat Logic

When I move around the house, on occasion my cat will start racing from room to room ahead of me. This has always been a particular source of amusement for me as from what I can tell what is going on in his mind is first observing that his master is taking a step towards the living room. This observation is processed with inscrutable cat logic. The final result is that he decides that he has to run into the living room as fast as he is able to go in order to beat me there. I then go into the living room to be met with a wild stare, and as I turn around and hear the sound of his legs furiously propelling him past me again the process is repeated.

Whats so funny about this is that for some reason that is not based in any real logic, but makes perfect sense in cat logic, my cat expends tons of energy to ensure that he is the first to arrive in every room. I suspect that it is some sort of game, and he's probably winning, but who knows what goes on in the mind of a cat.

That said, I also found this article on why atheists don't have to showrespect for other religions quite amusing. For the most part it is full of normal atheist talking points about how religion is evil and whatnot. But what struck me is that the author admits that many religions are harmless, and then goes on about the importance of making more atheists. So as I try to look at it from their perspective, what I see is first the observation that there is no god/supernatural/after life. Everything that we do ultimately will not matter as we are all going to die anyway. After death it does not matter whether you've lived a good life or a miserable life, as your consciousness is simply gone. Everything can be explained by science, which ultimately means that we have no free will. These observations are then processed by inscrutable atheist logic. Then the final result is the burning passion to make everyone else believe that there is no god/supernatural/after life/morality/free will. And as I look into those wild atheist eyes, I find myself thinking “You go atheist, live that dream”.

Chris Christie's hypothetical presidential run

The worst smell I have ever smelled was my dog right after being sprayed by a skunk. I was delivering papers at the and had to just keep going despite the terrible smell of my companion. I distinctly remember at one point my dog crapped on the lawn of one of houses I was delivering to, and as I bent over to clean it up, I actually found the aroma pleasant. The smell of the skunk spray was so bad and so overwhelming that even the smell of dog poop was pleasant by contrast.

This is why Chris Christie looks good.

He looks really good when he is going toe to toe with public employees who's sense of entitlement is running rampant. He shows a willingness to fight hard battles that most politicians lack. Unfortunately that's the end of the positives. Take for example here where he is responding to questions about his appointment of a Muslim judge. When asked about the issue of Sharia law he goes on to say that its crazy because the guy is an American citizen and has sworn to uphold the law. This of course completely ignores the fact that we have had rulings in the US that were based on Sharia law. Were the judges in those cases not American citizens? Did they somehow avoid taking the oath to uphold the law before being sworn into office?

Then there is the issue of immigration. You remember how Rick Perry was blasted for supporting in state tuition for illegal aliens? Christie passed the same bill in his state.

Then there's climate change. He has bought it hook line and sinker. Even after the East Anglia email scandal where the whole world was able to see confessions of falsifying data in order to reach predetermined conclusions. And yet ol Christie somehow missed it. And he missed resignation of Dr. Ivar Giaever. And Hal Lewis. And Chris Landsea. And Paul Reiter. And this petition of 31,000 scientists from. And the admission that there has been no warming since 1998.

And any politician who still supports global warming initiatives is either stupid or receiving kick backs from the green machine.

So the point is that Chris Christie might be trying to make the state of New Jersey smell like dog poop, but for a state that currently smells like skunk spray it's progress. As a nation, we need to do better.  

A Game Resource

A while back I made a couple of posts that were intended to give a compact overview of what game is coming from the perspective of someone who has never heard of it before.  Well heartiste has put out a great post on that topic.  It's different in that it is not what game is, but rather what game is not.  So here you go, compact list of anti-game written far better than I ever could have.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/what-is-anti-game/

Jesus and Game Part 2

I put this post together mostly from skimming the book of Matthew. And from it I've found texts that demonstrate the alphaness of Jesus.

Jesus is a leader of men. When he wants someone to do something he does not ask. He tells them.

Matthew 4:18-20

And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.

Here we see that Jesus just went up to a group of strange men and told them “Follow me”. And they did it. He didn't ask “Would you like to follow me?” or “If its not too much trouble, could you join with me?”.

Matthew 10:5

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not”.

He does not say: “Okay guys, I want you to go into the city. Can you do that?”

Jesus has a massive frame. Often the Pharisees would come up to him with some sort of verbal trap designed to make him back off, apologize, or incriminate himself. These are huge shit tests. And Jesus passes every one by bringing people into his frame instead. Never once does he qualify, apologize or back off. And he always does things in such a way so that after his response, he is innocent and the Pharisees are guilty and sputtering with rage.

Matthew 9:10-12

Jesus eats with sinners and is accused.

“And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.”

This might look like beta justification, but it's critically different in that there is no I language, and it also is a reframe. By making his analogy he casts the Pharisees as being out of line. Now instead of him cavorting with sinners, the Pharisees are framed as being heartless.

Matthew 12:1-4

“At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?”

Instead replying to their accusations Jesus reframes the issue. Now instead of looking like a law breaker, he made the Pharisees look like ignorant hypocrites.

Matthew 15:1-11

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Jesus is caught breaking the law as it is understood, but instead of apologizing or qualifying, he turns it around on the Pharisees. After explaining how their (seemingly unrelated) teachings go against the law, he nails them with the line “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

There are many more examples than these, and I purposely left out many that involve miracles, even though they are valid. But a man coming of as alpha by preforming a miracle is too easy. Much like it is not so impressive to see a rock star being alpha.

Gender Studies

Women good, men bad.  This is what beta male Jonathan Dean very much believes gender studies are not about.  I don't think that I need to actually point out the women's studies classes are linked to the feminist movement non that the feminist movement is hostile towards men in general, as that is painfully obvious.

For those Christians out there that actually have bought into this stuff, all you need to know about the difference between genders is in Genesis 3.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This is part of life and will be until the next life.  God designed women to be ruled over by men that they desire.  And this president was set not in a positive light but as a curse.  Same as God's curse of men in the next three verses.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 

The curse for men is that we have to work till we die in order to not die sooner.  For women it is that they are ruled over by men.  These both can be circumvented in the short term, but only at a terrible cost.  So for women the option is submit yourselves to a man, find a man who will submit to you and you will despise, or accept spinsterhood and study up on cat husbandry.

**Update**
It was not my intention to say that this is the only difference between men and women worth knowing, which I think is made obvious by my previous posts.  I mearly was stating what I believe to be the most relevant fact in the subject of gender inequality as related to what would be studied in a university.

Christians, Liberals, and the war on reality

I like my church. The reason that I like it is because engrained in my church is the expectation of God showing up and being real, an expectation that is often met.

That said, the 9/11 sermon delivered by our pastor was a bit off. Our pastor generally made some points about fear and people being people no matter what the color of their skin that are certainly true in the broadest since. But to get there he made some statements about the moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam that are just wrong, and gave off the vibe of the whole diversity nonsense that is being pushed so absurdly in public schools and in public service announcements.

The way that our pastor drew up moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam was to talk about the terrorist attack in Norway that was committed by a christian. He admitted that he didn't know the details of that attack, so as someone who does, let me fill you in. The attack had two parts, a car bombing and a shooting.

The car bombing did cause some damage killing 8 people, but it was the shooting that really was a disaster killing 69 people. The shooting was carried out at a political camp for youths active in the Labour party. The motivation for the terrorist was to effect political change by killing off as much of the future party leaders from the Labour party as possible. He's specific reason for hating the party was for their immigration policy. He believed that Muslims were invading his country through immigration with the goal of taking over the country. He was identified in the media as a Christian, but in his manifesto stated that he was a cultural Christian which he differentiated from religious Christians in that the latter have a relationship with Jesus Christ, something that he did not have. He goes on to say that he is not excessively religious.

So was he a christian terrorist? I would not call him a christian, as having a relationship with Jesus Christ is one of the most central things to being a christian. That and acknowledging Jesus' godhood and accepting him as lord. Those three things define what a christian is. Anyone else who calls themselves a christian is just identifying with their parents beliefs without actually following them, or is just plain crazy.

Its important to know what kind of Christian the Norwegian terrorist was because of how our pastor drew the moral equivalence. For Islam he showed a slide on the projector that had a line between secularists and jihadists with marks like moderate in between. The point from this being that there is diversity in beliefs among those who call themselves Muslims, just as there is diversity in belief among Christians. The interesting thing about this graph is that it is the people who are most into Islam that plot and execute acts of terrorism. But for the lone example of a christian terrorist, it is the opposite. It is a guy who is mostly not religious.

The truth is that serious Muslims would not accept secular Muslims as one of their own, just as I don't think of people who say that Jesus was just a great teacher as being Christian regardless of how they self identify. So after getting the facts that our pastor readily admitted that he didn't have, its pretty clear that there is no moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. In Christianity it is the real Christians disavowing the actions of a fake Christian, in Islam it is the fake Muslims disavowing the real Muslims. Any drawing of equivalence here is absurd. As a Christian I make no apologies or excuses for the fact that my religion is superior to others, to would be cowardly and wrong.

The second point that ruffled me was made about diversity. Now he didn't come out any say anything directly, it was more aesthetic things like a montage of smiling faces of people from all different cultures backed by music that make any healthy adult want to throw up.

Now for full disclosure, I'm fairly sensitive about these things after hearing so many radio ads that go something like: “This is the sound of one voice singing. This is the sound of many voices in harmony. Yay diversity, now go move into a black neighborhood. (This message was paid for with your tax dollars)”. But with that in mind, I still think that a message on 9/11 about how prejudice is evil and people everywhere are people is at best pretty weak.

Where Christians and Liberals tend to go wrong on diversity is by ignoring readily observable reality. And not only that, but also telling people who don't ignore reality and draw obvious conclusions, that doing that is wrong. This is silly. It is not in the Bible or remotely christian. The truth is that Judaism was all about cultural and genetic purity. With the wholesale slaughter of many neighboring nations and the forbidding of intermarrying and procreating with them, the Jews were just as opposed to some silly idea of diversity as anyone. This was at God's direction. It only changed in Acts chapter 10 when God gave Peter a vision saying “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”which he later interpenetrates: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” You can read the whole thing here.

The point is that it is through Christs redemption that we are able to have a healthy diverse society. Take Christ out of the mix and you have race wars. Diversity is not a virtue in and of itself. It's not even a very good idea. It is only in Christian communities that you can have large groups of people from different racial backgrounds without having race riots. And even then I doubt its any better than an equally large community of the same racial background that is all Christian.

The other silly notion is that we are all prejudiced. There is this stupid notion that making snap judgments about people based on race, sex, clothing, whatever is prejudice. Really its just common sense. You make this kinds of judgments because for the most part they are accurate. You'd be stupid or remarkably unobservant to not make these snap judgments about people. Where it gets into anything evil is when you use those snap judgments to make up you mind about someone. For example, when I go to a public basketball court and join a bunch a black people, I assume that they will have no respect for me being a white man until I score on them a few times. Even then, particularly with younger players they still might write me off based on my race. However if one of them starts passing to me right away and actually does a pick and roll play with me (almost never happens) I'll re-evaluate. If I didn't re-evaluate I'd be a bigot, as it is I'm just going off of past experience.

So if your in an airport and you see a guy with a turban, and he makes you more nervous than the guy next to him who seems to be dressed as a Mennonite (making you wonder why he's in the airport) your not a bigot. You just happen to have a brain. Don't apologize for it.  

Why I don't respect atheism

There are a lot of beliefs out there that I don't agree with, but I don't think that there is any religious belief that generates quite so much contempt for me as atheism. Now to be clear, I make a distinction between those who just don't think about it in general or agnostics and those who actively preach atheism. But for those who do, I can't think of any more self defeating belief system with the possible exception of pluralism.

The first problem with atheism is that it does not allow for free will. If science is all that there is, then all of our actions are determined absolutely by scientific laws. Our thoughts and actions are just the result of the atomic and sub-atomic physical and chemical reactions among the particles that make up our being. All thought and choice is merely an illusion. Now you might say that things are not 100% predetermined by the initial state due to theorized true randomness in sub-atomic movement. But this would not make you anymore free. It just means that the illusion of thought and choice is determined by a mixture of initial state and sub-atomic dice rolls. This is still no freewill. And when you take free will out of the equation then there is really no point to arguing about atheism is there? You can make your case but the truth is that the correct set of random sounds that would vibrate the air and then interact with the particles that make up my body would be just as likely to change my mind by effecting the movement of those particles and therefore effecting my illusions of thought. But freewill is self evident. I know that I have no way of proving it, but regardless I am aware of making choices before acting. And all of the atheists that I have interacted with also presumed freewill no matter how little it fits with their dogma.

As far as I'm concerned this completely defeats atheism. But I'm feeling generous, so lets just give those atheists a break and let them borrow the thoroughly religious concept of freewill from a vastly superior belief system that does allow for it. You then have the problem of morality. In atheism morality is a non concept. Morality has to exist independently of individuals and cultures otherwise it is completely arbitrary. And arbitrary morality is no morality. Its as if I made up the concept of abzudro. Things that are very abzudro are considered bluno. Things that are inabzudro are considered rgion. Now whether an thought, choice, or action is bluno or rgion can be defined by the culture, the individual, or other individuals or cultures. But of course it's all nonsense. You can just as easily say that a culture defines gravity as bluno and magnetism to be rgion. But there is no reason to do so. Gravity is what it is. As are all thoughts, choices, and actions. Applying good and evil values to them is no more or less valid than to apply them to laws of science, logic, or math.

But again, I know that there is right and wrong. I know it just as I know that I have freewill. I cannot prove either concept, but I don't need to. They are self evident. And if I am wrong about either one, then it does not matter because everything is completely pointless anyway. So you see atheism has multiple levels of pointlessness, and yet almost no atheist acts as though they believe this, leading me to conclude that even atheists don't believe in atheism. Its no different than people like Michael Moore who will say that Cuba is a better country than the U.S. with a superior government. And yet I don't see him moving. If you truly believe something, then you will act on it. If you are not willing to act on you beliefs, than subconsciously your not even fooling yourself.

Judges are Cowards

From wnd: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=340785

Advocates for life captured a huge victory today in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where judges ruled the state of South Dakota can require abortionists to provide specific warnings to   patients about just exactly what an abortion is and does.

The much-fought case previously has been to the 8th Circuit for arguments over a preliminary injunction, and the ruling today affirmed part and overturned part of the district court's decision that eventually resulted.

The court found constitutional the state's decision to demand abortionists tell patients three things:

• That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
• That [the patient] has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.

Point three: “Abortion will terminated the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”. The science has been there for a while now showing this to be the case. So what these judges are saying is that they know that abortion is flat out murder, but they still won't rule against it. And for you limp wristed pansies out there who think that violating states rights or legislating from the bench are a bigger deal than saving the lives of millions of children, your sick twisted ethics would not even be breached by outlawing of abortion from the bench. The Fourteenth Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” By the laws already in the constitution, recognizing the humanity of an unborn child means that no abortions can be preformed without a trial first.  

Jesus and Game Part 1

Anyone who has read the Bible knows that it does not read like a novel. There is very little in the way of detail and a great deal must be inferred by the reader. Though the Gospels are actually easier to read form the stand point of telling a story, it still never mentions anything like facial expressions, tone of voice, or anything like that. Once in a while you get to know what emotions people are feeling, but that is it. So as I analyze Jesus through the lens of game, just know that I have to make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

I'm going to use the book of Luke mostly because it includes a story from when Jesus was 12 that is not present in the other gospels.

Normally I use the KJV both because the underlying text that was used in its translation is vastly superior and because I find that when doing verse by verse comparisons it tends to be slightly different and better in what it says. However in this particular case the old style english would do more to muddle that to revel. So here is Luke 2: 46-50 in the NIV:

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.

48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”
50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

The context here is that Jesus' family had traveled to Jerusalem for a religious holiday. When it was over and they left to go home but 12 year old Jesus stayed at the temple. They were traveling in a large group of relatives and friends, so they just assumed that he was somewhere for a whole day of traveling back to their home town. After not being able to find him, the went back to Jerusalem and searched for him there. So, I believe that it was a total of 4 or maybe even 5 days total that he was missing. 1 day traveling home, another traveling back, and then 3 days searching for him.

Now at this point you would think that after finding him just fine and dandy at the temple talking with the teachers, his parents would rightfully be furious. His mom says “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” They are most likely tired and sick with worry. And I have to say that today as a grown man, if I put my parents through something like this and my mother said something like that to me, I would just wither under her criticism. I would qualify and say something like “I'm so sorry, I didn't know you were looking for me.” But that would not be the alpha response.

The alpha mind set takes statements like “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” and sees a shit test. So the alpha response is to either ignore, agree and amplify, or to reframe. The alpha mind does not qualify itself, or make apologies. And here at age 12 we see Jesus demonstrate a massive alpha frame that is completely unshaken by the guilt trip laid on him by his own mother. In stead of apologizing Jesus says “Why were you searching for me?”, and reframes the issue putting the blame of their ordeal right back onto their own shoulders. He then drives the point home “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”. In the context this statement is borderline accusing.

This leaves his parents confused, as the metaphor of God as a father is largely with us today because Jesus used it in his teachings as an adult. It does not say one way or the other whether Jesus tried to further explain it to them, but by just leaving the story with “ they did not understand what he was saying to them”, would seem to imply that he didn't go on to try. This would be alpha aloofness. He just says what he is going to say and moves on. He doesn't have to make them understand, he spoke his mind was done with it. 

What is game part 2

The next game idea I'm going to cover is the idea of being a leader. Its pretty self explanatory, but there are a lot of men that may think of themselves as leaders but really don't do any leading. Think about times where there is a directional void in your social interactions. Do you say “I don't know, what do YOU want to do?” or do you take on the role of leadership and give the group direction?

And tying into the idea of being the leader is the principle of not asking for permission. An alpha male will simply assume that whatever he is doing is okay. Part of this is recognizing what is okay before acting so as to not get shot down, but its also done by framing things in such a way that you are in control. A good example of this is the Mystery routine for asking if you can kiss a girl (hat tip to heartiste for this one). Instead of asking a girl if you can kiss her, which is very unsexy and will result in missed opportunities as you'll be ruining the moment, you simply say “Do you want to kiss me.” If she says yes go for it, if she says no you say “Well I never said that you could, you just had that look.” By doing this instead of asking “Can I kiss you?” you maintain your alpha frame as a man who does not need permission.

I feel like before I call it a post and start getting into Biblical application, I should mention just a few more things. Some more terms that you should know are:

Display of higher value (DHV): anything that you do or say that you do or say that shows you to be more dominant, pre-selected, or powerful. Passing a shit test is a DHV.

Display of lower value (DLV): anything that you do or say that shows a lack of dominance, pre-selection, or power. Failing a shit test is a DLV.

Kino: Any kind of physical touch. It does not have to be explicitly sexual, but the idea is that you start with innocuous touch (on the forearm or shoulder for example) to get the girl comfortable with you touching, and then escalate.

Push Pull: push the limits and then pull away first. So first you hold hand, and you make sure that you break away first. Then you hug, and you make sure that you end the embrace, and so on. The idea is that by you pulling away first you will instill a sense of loss leaving the girl wanting more and therefore open to more.

Alpha male other guy (AMOG): anything you do or say that lowers the SMV of another man, which then raises yours.

White Knighting: playing the role of the white knight who saves the maiden is considered beta. It implies that the maiden is of higher value (higher SMV) and has to be manipulated into liking the man.

Try hard: trying to act like an alpha male, but clearly acting, not believing it. For example, if a girl calls you a loser, to respond “No YOUR a loser!” is not reframing but really showing try hard desperation.

A little more on pre-selection. I said it was self explanatory in the last post, but there is more to it than just being wanted by other women. A man who acts like he has options is attractive, because it implies that other women want him. Conversely a man who treats a woman like she is the only one for him demonstrates that he does not have options and therefore other women must know that there is something wrong with him. This is called oneites and it is a major DLV. Observe 

What is game

So by popular demand I am going to write a few posts on game and how it appears in the Bible. First things first as I've found that most writing on game tends to assume a certain amount of knowledge on the subject, and only rarely contains explicitly defined core concepts, I'm going to do my best to bring you up to speed so that you can go on to read more about the subject by authors far better versed than myself.

So what is game? According to the Standford Evcyclopedia of Philosophy it is “Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents”. So in the broadest sense game is art of using social interactions to gain a competitive advantage. That being said most of the focus of practitioners of game is to achieve sexual success with women. This does not mean that this is the only use of game, but that is the driving force behind the development of the social models.

Another thing you should know is that game theorists like to use a lot of acronyms, so as I'm layout out the foundation I'll try and get as many acronyms as I can remember and provide the definitions.

At the core of game theory is the idea of the sexual market place. Everyone is in said marketplace and has a sexual market value (SMV). There are two ways that people are valued: for sex and for a long term relationship (LTR). For men most things that add to their sex value add to the LTR value as well, but the inverse is not true. For women the sex value and LTR value can be in conflict, and in fact a woman can boost her sex value by sacrificing LTR value. Specifically a woman can increase the number of options that she has for men willing to sleep with her by making herself easily sexually available, but this also reduces the number of options she has in men who will be willing to commit to her for a long term relationship or marriage.

Most men, in western society anyway, come with fairly high built in LTR value but not very good sex value. Basically all men and women won't even look at LTR value unless they are first interested in the sex value. So the goal of game practitioners is to use game theory to boost their sex value. And I'm mostly going to focus on men, because their sex value is much more complex than a woman's. Women's sex value is determined by looks, health, and fertility, in that order. And there are some interesting things there, such as the fact that women are more attractive when they are ovulating, or that long hair is more attractive than short hair due to the fact that it indicates better health (sorry to you short haired women who have been tricked by all the polite men who will never say that they don't like your hair, and by all the women who had a positive reaction because subconsciously they see their SMV go up as another woman's goes down). But the meat of the theory is in making men more attractive.

So what makes men attractive? From what I've read and observed, I would say that the hierarchy goes dominance, pre-selection, power, and good looks. Notice how upside down it is from what determines a woman's SMV.

Power and good looks are pretty self explanatory. Pre-selection is the term used to describe the fact that women what men that other women want. This is what allows rock stars to do so well with women, they can be complete winers and passive aggressive bitches who preform like this but when they preform on stage and get so many people cheering for them, all other attraction switches are overridden. Now pre-selection is very important in game theory and plays a big part in learning how to work a room, but most of the meat of the theory is how to be socially dominant.

More terms: to act dominant is to be alpha, to act submissive is to be beta. Some one who acts generally dominant as referred to as an alpha male, and one who is generally compliant is referred to as a beta male. Most authors use these terms although some have more sophisticated hierarchies, and it is not uncommon to refer to the very bottom of the male social heap as omega.

The first and perhaps biggest thing is to being alpha is to start passing shit tests. A shit test, also less commonly referred to as a fitness test, is when a woman says or does something to get a man to qualify himself, to apologize, or to do something unearned or unwarranted. One of the most often cited shit tests is a woman coming up to you in a bar and asking for a drink. If you buy her a drink, that lets her sort you into the beta category and classify you as unfit. Another example would be if you girlfriend says to you “You never make time for me. You don't really care about me at all!”. Responses such as saying your sorry, and giving excuses as to why you've been busy or whatever are all failures.

The 3 main ways to pass a shit test are to ignore it, agree and amplify, or reframe it. So to show all the options here lets look at the shit test “Does this dress make me look fat?”. “No honey, you look beautiful” failed. “” (ignored) not very creative, but you didn't fail. “Yeah, it makes you look like a walrus having a heart attack” (agreed and amplified) passed, although probably not appropriate if there are any actual body image issues there. “Wow, your pretty vain about your looks” (reframe) passed with flying colors, now you've made it so that instead of being on the spot expected to make consoling statements, she's on the spot having to justify herself to you.

And this post is already getting to long, so I'll be putting the rest in the next one.  

Police State

With the new regulations for the TSA, the passing of the law violating the 4^th amendment in Indiana, and the many many example videos of police abuses being posted online, it’s becoming unavoidably clear that we live in a police state.

Here are some examples:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/684/196/Police_State:_Man_Detained_for_Photography_Because_of_Patriot_Act.html

A man is detained for photographing a railroad station in Baltomore.  The police incorrectly cite the patriot act, and illegally detain him for over 40 min.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun

A man legally open carries his gun and is illegally detained by the police.  While walking to the store a police officer draws and aims his gun at this law abiding citizen.  After about an hour the police officer finds that he is in the wrong and lets this guy go.  Now they are trying to charge him with crimes for not responding correctly to a police officer who was breaking the law.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/1

This article contains several examples of people being abused by the police and then charged for recording it. 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-woman-screams-for-help-after-tsa-molestation.html

A woman at the air port has a meltdown after going through a pat down that includes sexual assault.  Her son catches it on video and is repeatedly told by the TSA that he is breaking the law by filming their abuses.  This of course is not true, but they still threaten to not let him fly and to steal his luggage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390398/Shocking-moment-police-throw-disabled-man-wheelchair-slam-ground.html

Here the police arrest a man in a wheel chair by picking him up and throwing him to the ground.  In their report they say that he fell out of the chair while resisting arrest, and threw in charges of assault for good measure. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI

In this case, to be fair, a law was passed outlawing dancing in certain public areas including the Jefferson Memorial, but that does not excuse the abuse committed by the police in conducting their arrests.  When you watch the video there is clearly excessive violence and force used against people who are not resisting.  They do continue to dance when told to stop, but the next step for the officers is not to throw them to the ground, choke them etc.

Now I could see how you might think that I'm just cheery picking a few cases here. You might think that this is similar to how people started to get terrified of their children being kidnapped, not because kidnappings were on the rise but because they started to get covered more and more by the news. I believe that this is different because I hear about such police abuse from more than just news stories. I don't personally know anyone who has been wrongfully detained or charged with assaulting an officer who was acting inappropriately, but second hand I do. And not second hand from some person I met on the street, but from people that I know well. I'm aware of two such cases where the person was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. They both spent time incarcerated without committing a crime aside from interacting with the police.

There seem to be two major problems. The first is that there is not proper prosecution of police officers. For example, the office that drew his gun on and ordered a citizen to get on his knees when the citizen was doing nothing wrong, was not suspended or fired or jailed, even though any of those would be appropriate. Police officers are subject to the law same as anyone else. There is no reason that this case should be handled any different than if I pulled a gun on someone and ordered them to get on their knees.

The other problem is incredible incompetence. These law enforcers don't seem to have a clue as to what the actual specifics of the law are. When laymen are quoting the directive numbers to the police to justify the legality of their behavior and the police still don't get it, we have a problem. And beyond that, for such laws as the video tapping of police, it's like the public is running the same sting operation on them over and over again, and they fall for it every time. How many videos like the ones that I've linked to have to come out before they start to realize that yes it is legal to record them. Not only is it legal, it seems that its very necessary because they have a habit of breaking the law and then lying about it in court in order to get their victims thrown in prison. And the double standard is glaring. When they get away with their lies, an innocent serves time which really wreaks their lives. When they are conclusively caught in the lie due to someone video taping their abuses, they attempt to prosecute the video tapper, or just call the whole thing off. Rarely is the officer punished, and if they are its normally just a suspension.

In order to have a civilized, law abiding society, we need better from our law enforcement. When they enforce laws that don't exist, they need to be fired. When they commit crimes they need to be prosecuted.