government scapegoat

anonymous asked:

If abstinence only education wasn't taught, if actual time was spent to help make the adoption system better, if money was actually allocated to schools and healthcare and things that help families and children, if things (read: birth control) were easier to access, then I might consider outlawing abortion, but currently one of the major parties starting with R has a pro birth stance, not advocating for anything to help with children and family post birth.

I’m not sure what you want me to say to this because the post I reblogged agreed that more should be done to help women who are pregnant and after they give birth. And there are tons of people who make efforts to aid these women with necessary resources and help them realize abortion isn’t the only option.

Do pregnant women and the adoption system need more help? Absolutely. But you can’t use government politics as a scapegoat. First, you don’t need to rely on political involvement to help others. There are many organizations that aren’t involved in politics that reach out pregnant women in need. Second, let’s not act like the Democratic party is some angelic entity because if it was, all these issues would have been magically solved under Democratic presidents who claim so much to care about these issues. Politics has corruption on each side. Politicians on both sides make promises they don’t fulfill and claim to support certain beliefs they don’t actually care about/support. Politicians say a lot of things to gain support and get into office. It’s a well known trick that’s been around since the start of politics.

What I’m gathering from your message is your stance is basically this: “I’m going to support the murder of innocent children because resources could be better to help pregnant women and the adoption system”. That mentality just doesn’t add up in my mind. The fact that you would consider supporting outlawing abortion under certain conditions tells me on some level you know it’s morally unacceptable. Yet because you see flaws in the adoption system and the resources available to pregnant women and have an issue with the Republican Party, you think murder should be legal and the lives of those children who are terminated before they have a chance are inconsequential. That’s like saying because the adoption system is flawed, it should be legal to murder children who are in foster care and can’t find anyone to adopt them - that their murder should only be illegal if the adoption system suddenly becomes ideal and improved. If you can see something wrong with that statement, then you should also see how something is wrong with your stance on abortion.

And also, birth control is more accessible and free than ever before, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about with regards to that. Oral contraceptives are largely covered by insurance (even the most basic insurance plans) and there are literally places available where people can obtain free condoms and other forms of contraception. When I was in high school (about 10 years ago now), they instructed us as teenagers exactly where to go to get free condoms if needed. Places like that were readily available 10 years ago, they’re even more accessible now.

And yes, abstinence is a valid form of birth control. In fact, it’s the only 100% certain way of not becoming pregnant. People have to realize that when they agree to having sex, the risk of pregnancy is always there even with birth control/contraception. If someone can’t accept or recognize truth that a baby can result from sex, then that person isn’t ready to have sex.


The Great Soviet Propaganda Plane,

At the time it was the largest and most advanced airplane in history.  Designed by Andrei Tupolev, the ANT-20 was a Soviet airplane that pushed the boundaries of aviation.  It wingspan was similar to that of a modern day Boeing 747.  To power such a massive plane, the ANT-20 utilized eight 900 horsepower engines.  It was also the largest airplane made of corrugated sheet metal. Finally it was the first airplane to use both alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC).

Named after Maxim Gorky, a popular Soviet writer and founder of the Socialist realism art movement, the ANT-20’s purpose was to spread Stalinist propaganda across the Soviet Union and Europe.  To do this, the ANT-20 was equipped with a radio station whose transmitter (called the “voice from the sky”) could override all but the most powerful local radio stations, a printing press that could distribute propaganda leaflets from the air, a library, a photography lab, and a film projector with sound to show movies to the plane’s 75 passengers.  It was Stalin’s plan that a whole fleet of such airplanes were to be built, which were to cruise the world’s skies while spreading communist propaganda across the globe.

On May 18th, 1935 the Maxim Gorky made it’s first demonstration flight over Moscow escorted by two I-5 fighters.  While the ANT-20 flew over Moscow spreading Soviet propaganda, the two fighters were to perform a series of dazzling aerial maneuvers around the massive plane.  Unfortunately the two planes simultaneously crashed into the Maxim Gorky, sending it plummeting to the ground where it crashed in a residential district near the present day Sokol Metro Station.  The crash killed 45 people, including two pilots, all 33 passengers, and ten people who were family members of the airplane’s designers.

After the devastating crash, the Soviet government made a scapegoat of the deceased pilot Blagin, claiming that he had made a reckless maneuver causing the crash and that he had a “cocky disregard of authority.”  A year after the fatal crash, a replacement airplane, called the ANT-20bis went into production.  It was similar to the Maxim Gorky, but with more powerful engines.  In 1942 it likewise crashed when the pilot allowed a passenger to take his seat momentarily and the passenger apparently disengaged the automatic pilot, sending the airplane into a nosedive from an altitude of 1,500 ft and killing all 36 on board. 

Stalin’s grand scheme of building a massive fleet of gigantic propaganda planes was scrapped in 1939 after several purges of the Soviet aviation industry resulted in a shortage of qualified engineers.

A personal pet peeve of mine is when I see people complaining that they have a lack of money, that they cannot afford the rent this month, or food for them and their family, how their times are tough, how the system is ‘oppressing them’ because they are low on the socioeconomic scale, and how the government is immoral for not doing enough for them…

… but at the same time, essentially waste shitload of money (that they mysteriously had lying around) on things like tobacco, alcohol, scratch cards (hell, even weed) EVERY week… actually, scratch that (get it, scratch cards, pun intended) EVERY DAY. 

And it’s not about the money, it’s about the thrill of gambling.

It’s absurd. I work in a store, and I’ll see people, daily, spend way over the pay I received for that working day, on these things (except weed, because they don’t sell that in stores, but you can definitely smell the lingering scent hang around). And I’m thinking, after you’ve finished your purchasing all of those six packs, or that small bottle of spirits, and the 20g of rolling tobacco, or those cool 20 clicky menthol cigarettes that have just come out, or that $30 or £20 worth of scratch cards you cashed in for more scratch cards rather than just taking the winnings, or those 5 lines in the lottery that you absolutely needed to have, and then you probably do some of the above about 4 more times within that week, are you absolutely sure that you didn’t have ANY money for food and rent at all?


And stop blaming the government as a handy scapegoat for everything and anything. Stop behaving like a child, and take some goddamn fucking responsibility for your own life.

This coming December will mark the 123rd Anniversary.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT…….December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.

TWENTY members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Natasha can agree with the registration act and still be on Steve’s side re: Bucky

I wasn’t gonna write this cause I don’t have a lot of time right now, but it doesn’t look like anyone else has brought this up so here goes.

So obviously this is all hypothetical and Natasha might turn out to be a double agent on Steve’s side re: the registration act and Bucky anyway, but it is entirely possible for her to be a very good friend to Steve and still have a different opinion regarding superhero registration.

Tony (or I guess General Ross, because this isn’t ‘Tony’s side’, not really; it looks like it was General Ross’ idea, and it’s actually the government’s side) has a very valid point. Vigilante justice is illegal in many places for specifically this reason, and considering how often members of the Avengers act without proper authority even when SHIELD backs them up, even when they do have good reason for it, they are, in fact, ‘taking the law into their own hands’, in a way. Several people have pointed out that the registration act can be seen as a metaphor for gun control, and while I personally don’t fully agree, this does point out that the Avengers can be a loaded weapon with enormous collateral damage, with no accountability.

Natasha can agree that there is a need for accountability. She doesn’t have to agree with everything happening in the movie (well, trailer) to be able to see that Tony’s got a point. That someone needs to oversee them. I would also like to point out that it’s highly likely that the Black Widow has always worked with a handler, at least until SHIELD went down, and that handler has always been affiliated with a government. Her seeing the logic in the Avengers having a handler, whether it’s the government, a list of registered heroes, or something else, isn’t as difficult to comprehend as we might think at first go.

Natasha is Steve’s friend, but she’s her own person first. She can have a different opinion than Steve regarding the registration act. She can especially have a different opinion than Steve, considering Steve is completely and utterly compromised in objectivity due to Bucky.

Which brings us to my next point, that Natasha agreeing that there needs to be accountability for the Avengers’ actions does not mean that she agrees with what they’re doing to Bucky. If anyone can remotely understand what Bucky Barnes went through, it’s Clint Barton and Natasha Romanoff, and let’s face it, probably Natasha more than Clint. I mean, just last movie the government tried to scapegoat her!

In fact, we have no evidence suggesting she’s okay with making a scapegoat of Bucky. We have no evidence suggesting she’s helping the government execute Bucky. We have no evidence to suggest she’s not trying to help Steve and Bucky out in her own way. The most we have is her telling Steve to stay out of this or he’ll make it worse, which is directly precluded by her telling him she knows what Bucky means to him. It’s likely she doesn’t. I don’t think Steve himself knows what Bucky means to him most of the time, but Natasha isn’t dumb enough to point that out and then tell him, oh hey, but you should abandon your best friend and let these people kill him anyway.

I think she had a plan. I think Natasha was going to stay on Tony’s side and work from the inside (double agent theory! only to a lesser extent) to figure out how they’re tracking/finding/planning to attack Bucky and then help him out however she could. (You can’t tell me the Black Widow can’t divert the forces and help one man disappear.)

And I think Natasha Romanoff, of all people, knows that Steve Rogers is a wild card when it comes to Bucky Barnes. Personally, I think that’s why she wanted Steve out of the way, because Steve has a gift for being able to fuck up plans he didn’t make himself, and Natasha couldn’t do what she wanted if Steve was involved, because he’s unpredictable. Steve doesn’t do things half-assed. It’s all or nothing for him, all the time, and he doesn’t make subtle points. Steve, by virtue of being Captain America, by virtue of being compromised, tends to leave destruction in his wake no matter how much he might not want to. And that, that just makes Tony’s argument stronger, doesn’t it? That just makes everything worse for both Steve and Bucky, doesn’t it?

Natasha knows how much Bucky means to Steve, she knows how far he could go for Bucky, she knows how recognizable Steve is, and she knows that Captain America is a bull’s eye painted right in front of Bucky Barnes.

I think Natasha wanted Steve to stay out of it and to leave it to her, because she can recognize a need for accountability and a need for a system which enforces accountability, and she can also recognize when the system is fucking up and making a villain of a victim.

She can do both.

Hunger Games & Oppression

There’s a bit in the latest Hunger Games movie where Katniss is talking about how fighting each other is pointless and that the oppressed fighting amongst each other is exactly what the Capitol (the oppressors) want. They want the oppressed to fight among each other rather than turning their combined power against the oppressors - the people in power. Because the elite don’t stand a chance against the combined power of the masses.

In a movie, or a book, we eat this shit up.

And then I come across a newspaper implying that all Muslims are sympathetic with ISIS or trying to excuse police brutality against a black man, or a trans woman.

Why do you think it is that the Government finds a scapegoat every time the people are unhappy? Jewish people, Muslim people, black people, poor people, disabled people, immigrants. If we’re blaming other people - oppressed people - we’re not blaming them. If we’re fighting each other with all our prejudices and stereotypes that are fed to us by the people in power, we’re not fighting them.

We accept it in media - in films, TV and books. But we don’t accept that our own Governments are doing it too.