Just A Document - Just Our Liberty

“The Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server, because Internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”

At least that's what is written in the IRS's Search Warrant Handbook for agents seeking guidance on how to treat our private communications. 

Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this information has been brought to light for the American people to judge: Are our rights being trampled on by our own government?

The IRS says no. At least that's what it was saying for about or week or so after this was first uncovered, as reported in The Hill and various other publications across the Internet. 

For those of you who do not keep a close eye on Constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the US Congress states: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, you and I are protected from searches of anything that could reasonably be considered private. The founding fathers saw this as an incredibly important right, and I think we can all agree that they were correct.

Although the IRS previously claimed that these documents did not actually indicate that private citizen's emails were being monitored, the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller, is now saying that said policies will be dropped.

So the policy doesn't exist? Or at least it's not getting used for that purpose? But we're going to drop it anyway.

Okay.

Americans, this kind of breach of trust is completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for this, and we should accept nothing less than jail time for somebody who made the decisions to implement and continue these policies. That might sound a little bit harsh, but in a land under the law, what crimes are worse than those that violate the tenants upon which our nation was founded?

Do not accept further erosion of our rights. Federal, state, and municipal governments have gone far passed what is reasonable in encroaching upon our liberty, but it stops here. Are we a generation that would trade Liberty for Security?

May it never be so.

Obramney: Presidential Debate 2012 Part Three

"I'm glad you agree that I agree that you agree."

I made it about an hour in to the Presidential debate this evening.

I guess I just got tired of two guys trying to talk circles around each other with generalities, half truths, and references to quotes or decisions without any context.

Tonight's topic is foreign affairs. I get pretty annoyed by the things Obama and Romney say as a general rule, but it's hard not to have a meltdown when they opine on foreign affairs.

First, I think Romney and Obama have almost exactly the same opinion on most of these issues, yet they somehow debate them like they're strongly opposed. What would Romney have done in Libya? Same thing as Obama. What is Obama doing in Syria? Almost exactly what Romney is suggesting. What would Romney do in regards with Iran? Pretty much the same thing that Obama is doing. At least that's what they're saying. There's really no telling what anyone "would" do in a situation they're not in though, so all we can say for sure is what Obama would do and what Romney would say about it.

I'm going to do you all a favor.

Instead of talking about Obama and Romney and what they think, I'm going to talk a little about what I think.

I've said before that I think I'd rather not vote than vote for the "lesser of two evils." But practically speaking there's a real struggle there. On the one hand (brace yourselves for some partisan language) I do not want Obama to win. On the other hand, I don't really think Romney will make a great president, and I honestly don't feel comfortable attaching my name to him. But then there's this consideration - I live in Virginia, which is a swing state, and what if my vote made the difference, and what if that difference of who became president made a positive difference in the US (we're being quite theoretical here, aren't we)? Now it's clearly very unlikely that either candidate would win or lose by one vote in one state. But the idea is present.

Here's what I think. From my point of view, Romney is the lesser of two evils, but that's just not an acceptable choice. I would rather that Romney loses this election so the Republicans get their act together and put forward a good candidate someday. To be honest, I would almost rather see the Republicans lose two or three presidential elections in a row than they put up another lesser-of-two-evils candidate. As Tyler Durden would say, "It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." In other words, if the Republicans lose two or three major elections in a row then maybe they'll get their act together and put forward a legit candidate. No more of this Romney McCain nonsense.

It's a lot like a game of chicken. Who's will breaks first? Yours or the establishments. If you vote you lose, at least sort of. I mean you don't get hit by the oncoming opponent, but you let the opponent win. And now you don't know, would they have swerved? I mean eventually maybe, but there's no telling now.

Did I mention that sometimes the loser is sprayed with mace? Let that be
a lesson to you.

In the Marine Corps we had a game like chicken, but it was called "bayonet training." We had wooden rifles called "bayonet trainers" and we'd run at each other at full speed in our flack jackets and these football helmet looking things and hit each other as hard as we could with them as if there were bayonets on our rifles. One Marine would judge who died. Usually we both died. The trick was don't swerve first. There are only three possible outcomes to a bayonet fight. You die. The other guy dies. Or you both die. You may not be able to guarantee that you won't die. But as long as you charge with full force behind that bayonet aimed at the other guy, and you refuse to change course, swerve, or turn the other way, you can ensure that the other guy dies.

I'm just saying, maybe you can't ensure that the election will go your way this year, but maybe you can put an end to the establishment that has been making these elections lose-lose situations for decades now. Just don't swerve.

Ethics vs. Morality

I recently completed an ethics class.

Don't worry. It was not some kind of court order.

I've never taken an ethics class before, but like most people I have a decent understanding of what ethics is. But for reference, this is what Dictionary.com has to say about it:

eth·ics

   [eth-iks]  Show IPA

plural noun

1.

( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.

the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.

moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.

( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Definition one is the most concise, the simplest, and seemingly the most relevant of the four, but that's not really how my ethics class presented it, and I don't think that's really how it's understood by society either.

No, I think society sees ethics as little bit more nebulous, a little less precise than definition one. It seems to match definition two a little better: "the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc."

Definition one ties ethics to morals. Morals are associated with absolutes; murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong. Ethics are seen as more flexible: society sees lying for personal gain as particularly undesirably behavior. Society sees sharing as desirable behavior. Ethics does not say abortion is "wrong" or "right." Ethics says you have to make the decision that works best for you for the "right" reasons.

Morals, in an ethical perspective, tend to be confined to each individuals personal beliefs. "Morally, it was okay for Jim to lie about the donut because it was okay within his own personal belief system." Whatever that means.

I think what ethics has to offer that society finds desirable really is its flexibility. It gives people the ability to skirt around those pesky, set-in-stone morals and focus on grey-area ethics. Ethic also provide a convenient avenue for change. Maybe it wasn't ethically sound to get a divorce 85 years ago, but today it is very accepted and considered perfectly ethical - at least ethical enough. During World War II it was considered ethical enough to firebomb cities, but it seems that most Western nations would be opposed to waging that sort of warfare today, at least ethically speaking. See how easy that is? We don't like that anymore, let's make it bad. We like this now, so we can make it good.

But I have some thoughts on the matter.

We were discussing global ethics. I just remember the term "global ethics" reverberating in my mind, and I thought about the implications of such a term.

In class we discussed and debated many different scenarios that presented ethical dilemmas. Almost every single scenario generated differing opinions with very strong reasons for the beliefs behind each position. At the end of each scenario discussion the instructor announced some sort of consensus and generally told us what most people "typically" picked as an appropriate position.

But not consensus was actually reached. Each person had his or her own legitimate reason for believing one thing or another, and none of us was going to behave differently in the example scenarios than we would have before our discussions. If anything I would say that most of us are now more likely to behave in the way we supported since we've had time to think about it and entrench ourselves in our positions.

Although different races, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds were represented in my class I would opine that we represent a fairly narrow demographic piece of the pie. We all live in Northern Virginia, USA. We are all Americans. We are all attending an ethics class. We all have jobs. When looking at things from a global perspective, we might as well have been raised in the same house together.

I don't know what "global ethics" is supposed to look like but if 10 Americans with relatively similar backgrounds can't reach a consensus on relatively low-profile issues that might pop up in the workplace, how might anyone expect different nations to come to a consensus on things like free speech, religious respect, terrorism, nation building, international boundaries, nukes, economic blockades, austerity, and currency manipulation? Is their a global ethical consensus on how the Israeli-Palestinian relationship should be managed? What about whether or not US troops should still be in Kosovo? Or who was "in the wrong" in the 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia? Drone strikes? Sanctions?

And even if their is a consensus, it is unlikely to change or alter the positions of the participants in any of these scenarios.

That's not so much a concern as an observation. In this respect I consider ethics weak. It carries no weight, no authority, no legitimate reason to abide by its so-called perspective. But I do have a concern. On the national level, as we begin to further accept changing ethics, which ends up translating to changing morals, or flexible morals, I grow more concerned about where that could lead us.

Utilitarianism is an ethical perspective that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I am a big fan of this perspective to a certain extent. I am a firm believer in efficiency, and as long as what is done is right, as long as it's good, I prefer the option that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If one of the options presented means doing something wrong or bad, though it may produce the greatest good, I do not tend to support that option. In other words, I do not see the ends as justifying the means. But that might just be a little old fashioned and "morals" based rather than ethics based.

This may be a little cliche, but let's talk about Nazi Germany. Hitler convinced an entire population of Germans that the mass persecution and removal of people who were undesirable or "in the way" of a new and better Germany was acceptable because it meant a brighter future for all Germans, for the entire world even under new German management.

I am not saying we are in a similar state as Nazi Germany, but we must not fall into the trap of believing that we are not capable of making the same mistakes or worse mistakes of those made by others before us. After all each and every one of us is in the same condition as the Nazis, and that is we are human. We all carry in us the ability to fear, to hate, to scheme, to plot, to murder, and to steal. None of us is immune to immoral thoughts or actions. Romans 3:10 says it more simply and concisely than I ever could: No one is righteous, not even one.

And I think that's the heart of the matter. Ethics avoids the issue of morality or righteousness. Ethics pushes us to consider whether our thoughts and actions are socially acceptable, or how easily we can cope with them. But I don't think that's right.

Instead of avoiding the issue we should meet it head on, and admit the truth so we can see ourselves as we truly are and proceed from there. I am not perfect. I have sinned. It is only when you have accepted this in yourself that you can understand the truth, and the truth will set you free.

One last thing. Instead of looking back through history and saying, "Look how our ethical perspectives have changed. Boy we sure see things differently than we did then." I think we should ask ourselves, "Were we right or wrong back then? Are we right or wrong now? What is different about our circumstances that makes us believe we had it wrong back then?" In my opinion ethics makes us susceptible to "groupthink," where people go along with the group because that just seems to be the direction it's going, and no one wants to be the one to disagree, stand out, or do things differently. Ethics is consensus based, and consensus thinking is more or less the definition of groupthink. If everyone thinks something is okay, then that makes it okay? In the end each one of us is responsible for our own decisions, regardless of what society says about it. Just something to think about.

Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Sudan - 9/11 All Over Again

Where to begin.

A homemade version of the Al Qaida flag being
raised over the US embassy in Cairo on 9/11/12.
Retrieved from breitbart.com.

If you have not been keeping up with current events, you should be aware that protests, demonstration, riots, and in some cases attacks have erupted across much of the Middle East and the Muslim World in response to a movie created in the US called Innocence of Muslims. These events have mostly occurred at or around US embassies or at the embassies of nations friendly to the US. Violence has erupted in at least five US embassies at this point to include Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, and Sudan. At least four American's have been killed including the US ambassador to Libya. These events have brought up questions of security, foreign policy, possible reactions, and freedom of speech.

A few notes on the film itself. I had the opportunity to watch a few minutes of the "trailer" of the film, which is about 15 minutes long. I watched around five minutes before turning it off because it is incredibly poorly made. It genuinely looks like something a person would have made with a cam-corder in his garage in his spare time.... drunk.... and with no taste in movies. To touch on specifics, sections were dubbed over, costumes and sets were poorly done, camera work was awful at best, and the scenes I saw were confusing and lacking in any kind of reasonable context to clue the watcher on to what was happening. I can understand how it would offend people based on content and cinematic style.

What I cannot understand is why any member of the US federal government has any business commenting on the legal, free speech of people in the US other than to say that the US will do whatever necessary to ensure those rights are protected. An article from the online publication Foreign Policy compared the distribution of this video to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater on an international scale. Although this comparison does have some merit, I must give a note of caution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Interestingly enough, this was noted by Supreme Court Justice Holmes in the landmark case Schenck v. United States in 1919 (the text of which you can find here). In this court case Charles Schenck had previously been charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by distributing fliers to prospective draftees (for World War I) telling them not to submit to being drafted. He appealed to the Supreme Court, and they ruled against him, saying essentially that speech which causes a clear and present danger is not protected. In 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio this was changed and the court held that speech aimed at inciting imminent lawless action (rather than clear and present danger) was prosecutable by the government.

I do not think the US government will pursue charges against the filmmaker nor do I think legislation will be put in place to further restrict any sort of freedom of speech. That being said, I resent the fact that so many individuals and organizations have spent the majority of their commentary on this issue expressing their anger at the filmmaker. He was an idiot. Being an idiot and expressing ones self as such through a film does not even come close to giving nations upon nations an excuse to enter our sovereign territory, tear down our flags, put up the Al Qaida flag, and kill our citizens.

Ambassador John Christopher Stevens.
Retrieved from dailymail.co.uk

As someone who is opposed to needless intervention, I want to make it clear that I think a military response to these events is far from intervention. But before I talk about that, let's talk about history. John Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya was the sixth US ambassador killed in the line of duty in the history of the United States. The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs was the last US ambassador killed in the line of duty before Stevens. Dubs was killed in 1979 in an exchange of gunfire between Afghani security forces and four Afghani militants who had kidnapped him. The US embassy in Afghanistan was subsequently closed and was not reopened again until 2002 after US and coalition forces had forcibly removed the Taliban from power. In November of the same year students occupied the US embassy in Iran, captured 52 Americans, and held them for 444 days in what became known as the Iran Hostage Crisis. The embassy has been closed ever since. According to The Guardian an organization called The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign has since used the former embassy as a site for recruiting at least hundreds of prospective martyrs (against the West).

History matters because it helps us understand the present. It puts current events into context and helps us understand why things happen the way they do, why we're at the place we are, and how different decisions might affect our future. In one year the United States abandoned two embassies in the Middle East. A few years later, in 1983, we were rocked by two bombings in Beirut, Lebanon. First the US embassy was bombed in April killing 63, then a multinational forces barracks was bombed in October, killing 299 US and French servicemen, 241 of whom were American. US forces withdrew completely from Lebanon four moths after the barracks bombing, and the rest of the multinational forces withdrew two months after that.

Unfortunately these events all worked together to create a picture of a weak United States in the Middle East. We apparently did nothing to prevent the takeover of our embassy in Iran, and we gave up without a fight in Afghanistan, removing a large portion of our influence from those nations for decades. Enemies of the US sent a message and the only message we sent back was that we will allow others to walk all over us. In Lebanon the Middle East learned that the US had lost its taste for battle, and if the American death toll shoots up high enough fast enough we will withdraw as quickly as possible. Of course it's also important to note that we had no business putting troops on the ground in Lebanon in the first place. Regime changes, civil wars, and internal strife are ever-present affairs in the Middle East, and our involvement is rarely beneficial. Just because we call the most recent round of regime changes and attempted regime changes "The Arab Spring" and say it's all about democracy, freedom, and overthrowing dictators doesn't mean it's a good thing. Egypt has likely replaced one dictator with another, only the new one is Mohamed Morsi, a leading figure in the Islamic extremist organization The Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is in a state of continued violence and unrest that leaves its future very uncertain.

You might think that I am ignoring some more recent history, but that will be addressed as well. On September 11, 2001 Al Qaida launched a terrorist attack on the United States using hijacked passenger planes that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, New York and caused extensive damage to the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia next to Washington DC. A fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers, aware of what had happened with the other three planes, decided to rush the cabin and attempt to rest control of the plane from the terrorists.

The US response to this was swift, deadly, and effective. Along with a coalition of other allies US forces and Afghani allies known as the Northern Alliance began Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7, 2001. By the end of the year most of the country had been taken by allied forces, and the war appeared to be mostly won. But what did we do wrong? Why is the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world with the help of other powerful, technologically advanced militaries still having trouble pacifying Afghanistan 11 years after it started? Let's start with "pacifying." How did that work out for us in Somalia? How about Kosovo? Did you know that there is still a multinational peacekeeping force including US troops in Kosovo today? Most people don't. War and the instruments of war should not be used to try to "create peace." That is not what they are for, and that is not what they do. You cannot "win hearts and minds" of an occupied people, just like you cannot befriend a person that you are holding at gunpoint.

The US defeated Japan in World War II because the incredibly radicalized Japanese government and military willingly surrendered after seeing the destructive power of two nuclear bombs. No illusion was made about the US fighting a war against the Japanese military but not the Japanese people. No one pretended that we did what we did to restore the control of the government to the Japanese people. Our objective was to win at all costs, and so we did.

The US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are both similar in that they were sold to the US people and the world as somewhat humanitarian campaigns. The US was a liberator, ousting oppressive regimes and the fact that we got to make the world and the United States safer by neutralizing active security threats was just icing on the cake. But historically the nations the US has "liberated" have not been nations with which we have actually been at war. The US helped liberate France with allied forces during World War I and World War II. That is because France was an ally, previously occupied by German forces. The US did not help liberate Germany. Along with Russia and Great Britain the US defeated and captured Germany, forcibly disarmed it, and did everything necessary to force the government and military to surrender. That included bombing and shelling cities.

The point is if we go to war, we need to go to win. When we limit the definition of who our enemies are to just those few militants and militaries that have outright attacked us, we are ignoring the vast populations of support for these fighters that do us harm. The US has taken the position that a few bad apples are responsible for attacking the US embassy in Libya, while most Libyans love the US. This seems to be the same narrative they expect us to swallow for what has happened in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Sudan as well. But the people who chose to be most active in exercising their feelings about the US seem to be the ones who decided to attack our sovereign territory. And it doesn't seem that any of the host governments have put much effort into stopping them. On Tuesday September 11, 2012, protesters in Egypt breached the wall of the US embassy, tore down the US flag, and put up the flag used by Al Qaida. That same day protesters and militants launched an attack on the US consulate in Libya, killing the ambassador and three other US officials. These heinous acts don't necessarily need to send us to war. But they do deserve swift, decisive action on our part. We should do the opposite of what was done at the embassy in Cairo, where the Marines had allegedly been ordered not to carry live ammunition in their firearms. Side note on that: one of the reasons the truck bomb that killed 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers in Beirut in 1983 was successful was because the Marines there had not been allowed to carry loaded weapons, to include those manning the .50 caliber machine gun at the entrance. Why?

A "protester" stands with his AK-47 at the US consulate in Benghazi,
Libya on September 11, 2012 after an attack that left the US
ambassador and three other Americans dead.
Retrieved from abcnews.go.com.

It should also be noted that these events are a lot to pile on to the tumultuous condition that the Middle East is in already. Relations between Iran and Israel are incredibly strained with fears in Israel (and around the world) that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb. Then there's rising tension between Israel and Egypt, as the new, less secular Egyptian government seems to be forgetting the peace it has had with Egypt since their last war. Syria continues to heat up, as both Saudi Arabia and Iran are supporting opposing forces in what has become, for all practical purposes, a civil war. The violence in Syria has spread to Lebanon, which is also heating up, and let's not forget Libya, which has yet to become truly "peaceful" since the US backed overthrow of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Maybe dealing with the Middle East is always a lose-lose situation, but I honestly believe that our foreign policy in the Middle East (as well as elsewhere) could be improved greatly. Supporting overthrows of administrations should not be supported haphazardly just because we believe they might be replaced by "better" administrations. Attacks on our sovereignty should be defended against severely, and responded to aggressively. Nations, groups, or conflicts that do not threaten our own security or that of our closest allies should almost always be avoided by us (with some exceptions, of course). Our government should spend less time commenting on what is said by Americans under their right to free speech and more time pursuing those who would attack that right. These are just my opinions, but one thing is clear: our current foreign policy is failing us miserably, and it's time for a change.

On Censorship

Yesterday I experienced a kind of censorship.

A few months ago I added Google AdSense to my site. The various ads you see on here are facilitated through that program. They track page views and clicks, and I earn revenue through them (roughly 75 cents over the last few months).

Although the few pennies I earn per month through this program hardly make it worth it, like most bloggers I am delusional and believe that one day I'll get enough traffic to actually make money from my blog. Therefore it seems to make sense to keep them.

I received this email from Google AdSense yesterday:

Hello,

During a recent review of your account we found that you are currently
displaying Google ads in a manner that is not compliant with our program
policies
(https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&stc=aspe-1pp-en).

--------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE PAGE:
http://www.pauliticalpundit.com/2011/06/westboro-baptist-church.html

Please note that this URL is an example and that the same violations may
exist on other pages of this website or other sites in your network.

VIOLATION(S) FOUND:

HATE/ANTI: Publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites with
content advocating against any individual, group, or organization. More
information about this policy can be found in our help center (
https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105947
).

REQUESTED ACTION: Please make all necessary changes in the next 72 hours.

If the violations are corrected within the aforementioned time period, ad
serving will not be affected. If changes are not made and/or other policy
violations are encountered during the review process, ad serving will be
disabled to your site.

ACCOUNT STATUS: ACTIVE

Your AdSense account remains active. However, if we continue to find
problems, we may disable your entire account. Therefore, we suggest that
you take the time to review the rest of your network to ensure that all of
your other pages are in compliance with our policies.

Basically, my post titled "Westboro Baptist Church" was found by Google AdSense to contain "content advocating against any individual, group, or organization." The email is not specific about which part of the post they are referring to, but I am assuming it's referring to some of the pictures of members of Westboro Baptist Church members holding signs. Although I did not advocate against anyone in my post, the signs they carry advocate vehemently against multiple groups.

Although I could have removed the pictures and I believe that would have been fine, I wanted to be on the safe side. Additionally I wasn't 100% sure that it was the pictures that caused the problem.

It was frustrating to receive an email giving me an ultimatum to remove something I had created. I do not believe I was advocating against any group, though I certainly depicted a group that advocated against many groups. I don't feel that I was even advocating against the people of Westboro Baptist Church (though I clearly disagree with their beliefs, actions, and words) but perhaps that's how Google AdSense saw it.

But in the big scheme of things I am not upset. It's house rules. If I were to allow someone else to host a party at my house, which included the posting of signs, posters, and photos, I would have certain rules about what could be posted. If someone posts something I disagree with I would ask them to remove it, and would expect them to do so without too much complaint. After all, it is my house.

It is important to differentiate between government censorship and other censorship. There is a difference between telling me I can't say something, and saying, "You are not allowed to continue using our service as a means of communication if you continue to say what you are saying." In other words, I completely support Google's right to make this request, though I wish they would reconsider their position on my Westboro Baptist Post.

If you have any interest in seeing the post that I removed, please email me or leave a comment on here and I will send it to you.

Syria's Regime Change - Potentially Serious International Ramifications

Reza Khalili doing his best to look like a Batman villain.
Retrieved from tyglobalist.org.

This is an interesting article I found on The Daily Caller by one "Reza Khalil," an alias for an individual who claims to be a "former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guard" (The Daily Caller). In the article Khalil claims that according to a "source" as well as some public statements by the Iranian government Iran will openly attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar if Bashar Assad's regime is overthrown in Syria. Khalil does not offer analysis on how likely this is, nor does he offer any description of the reliability of the source. I have my doubts.

After doing some light research on Reza Khalil I found that one thing is clear: we don't know much about him. He claims to have worked for the CIA in the Revolutionary Guard and has even given some public talks in the US (with a face mask and voice changer of course), but some "critics" and "experts" doubt the validity of some of his claims. On the other hand, his lawyer claims he is telling the truth. My personal take on it? The guy is suspect, but that doesn't mean he's not at least partially legit. I can offer no conclusive opinion on how reliable he is.

So let's get to the meat of the matter. Do I think it's actually likely that Iran will initiate open war with Saudi Arabia? No, but I'll get to that. Khalil claims that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war in Syria, both having sent fighters to help their respective sides. Predominately Shia Iran is predictably backing Assad's regime, which is also Shia and has had strong ties to Iran for a long time. Saudi Arabia is reportedly backing the Sunni opposition forces that seek to remove Assad's regime. Assuming all this is true, it would make sense that Iran would be a little upset. Syria has long been an ally with Iran, and if it has a major regime change Iran may find itself very, very alone in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabian troops  entering Bahrain in March 2011 to help put down
the Bahraini uprising. Retrieved from guardian.co.uk.

Remember the Arab Spring? It hit Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and continues to affect Syria to this day. But let's back up to Bahrain. The Bahraini Arab Spring began on February 14, 2011 as the Shia majority was tired of the abuses of the Sunni minority government. As protests and demonstrations escalated a couple things became clear. The Shia protestors were being backed by Iran and the Sunni government was being backed by Saudi Arabia. The crackdown was brutal. Close to 100 civilians were killed, thousands were tortured, imprisoned, or exiled, and over 30 Shia mosques were demolished. Saudi Arabia could not have a kingdom modeled after it in such close proximity suffer a regime change. Iran was upset with the way things were handled. Tensions rose.

The Bahraini Arab Spring was the first time I became aware of an underlying conflict between Iran in Saudi Arabia. This conflict in Syria only continues that theme, but there are some very serious variables. Iran is not a predictable force. They have defied the United States in the past with such actions as the Iran hostage crisis when 52 Americans from the US embassy in Iran was captured and held hostage from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. They have also backed down from conflict earlier this year when Iranian officials promised to attack US forces if they entered the Straits of Hormuz. But we did enter the Straits of Hormuz and nothing happened. Iran had been posturing.

My gut tells me that Iran is posturing now. Like Saddam Hussein, they fear the appearance of weakness. They are willing to make any threats or promises of violence that they feel are necessary to keep their enemies and perceived enemies at bay, but would they really risk all out war with Saudi Arabia, one of the United States' top allies in the region? I still think not. I hope not.

The implications of this are far reaching. If Iran and Saudi Arabia were to engage in all-out war, Saudi Arabia would certainly call upon the US and European allies for assistance, which I believe we would happily offer en masse. Then enters another wild card. Russia is also unhappy about a potential regime change in Syria, one of the few nations in the region that offers a secure port for the Russian Navy. Russia has also been saber rattling, but would they get involved in an Iran/Saudi Arabia/United States mix up? I believe the answer is "maybe."

So is there a potential for World War III to start in the next couple of weeks? Totally. But it still doesn't seem likely. However it is easy to see how this kind of thing could escalate to an international conflict on a scale we haven't seen in decades.

The Nanny State And Tyranny

It would appear that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is taking his role as a leading liberal seriously these days. You may have heard that New York City is planning to ban the sale of sugary drinks over the size of 16 ounces like soda, juice, or coffee with sugar in it. Then after the Aurora shooting he was staunchly outspoken in his support for more gun control going as far as to say this:

“I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, ‘We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,’”

In other words, he not only believes that you and I should not have guns. He believes that it is okay for one section of the people in the United States to have guns while the rest go unarmed. He believes that the government should have all the firepower while the people live unable to defend themselves against criminals, invaders, or even their own government. Indeed he believes that the very people in this one-sided dystopia of his who would get to remain armed ought to stop protecting the innocent in order to force our hands and allow them to be the only ones who carry.

But I digress. Bloomberg now has women up in arms about a new plan to try to limit the availability of baby formula in hospitals for new mothers, as baby formula is believed to be potentially detrimental for infants (for more accurate or specific science in this area please see someone else's writing). To be fair, from what I gather he isn't pushing any sort of law that would ban the availability of baby formula for new mothers in hospitals. He just wants to make it harder for them to acquire it.

It actually seems like a pretty tame issue when you consider the fact that hospitals voluntarily undertake the actions that he requests of them, but that doesn't mean it's a great option or anything. What I find amusing is that the same media that has mostly ignored or encouraged much of the government's aspirations to put more controls on us suddenly goes into an uproar when his increased meddling appears to target a protected group, women in this case.

This leads me to some other musings. I can comfortably say that I am against all sorts of oppression. I imagine most others can say that pretty comfortably as well. But I wonder, which is worse: a man who sets out to oppress everyone, or a man who sets out to oppress a certain group or subset of people? Think about it. What evil drives a man to purposefully harm everyone?

Consider a scenario. One man decides to kill everybody in his town. Certainly these are not all the people in the world, but for all practical purposes they are because these are all the people he can reach, all the people that he has the the ability to affect change over. The other man decides that he wants to kill everyone in town over the age of 65. Ageism is one of the less socially abhorred isms, but it still is an ism and is therefore socially unacceptable (like racism, not like socialism). I believe I understand why it's so easy to stigmatize racism, sexism, ageism, religion-ism (not a real term, I know). Clearly they're bad, but to err is human. I think what's so insidious and disgusting about isms is how easy it is to pinpoint the hate that they spring from. Hitler hated the Jews. That is apparent because he tried to kill all of them. No other real explanation is needed. We watch as this kind of hate dehumanizes groups of humans in the eyes of other humans and causes them to do horrible things to one another. We watch mortified, shocked, and sure that we could never be guilty of such sinister actions. This man is evil. But the man who decides to kill everyone, how do we cope with that? Does he hate everyone? Is he a lunatic? What drives him to destroy so wantonly?

Whatever your answer, to me it's all the same. Both men are evil. They are driven by evil and what they seek to do is evil.

So it's a wonder to me that certain groups get upset when the rights of some are attacked but not when the rights of others or indeed the rights of all are laid siege against.

Some think it would be okay to block the construction of a Muslim cultural center in downtown Manhattan, while others believe it would be okay to block the addition of new Chic-Fil-A restaurants in certain cities based on the different beliefs of these two organizations (first amendment).

Some believe that even though the second amendment clearly states that, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it is okay for entire cities like Chicago or New York to have that right stripped from them.

And even though the fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure except by warrant, that right has been almost completely eroded in airports, trains, our cars, and often in our own homes.

These are not the only areas where our rights have begun to disappear, but they are some of the most important. Mayor Bloomberg doesn't understand why police across this nation don't strike until guns are taken out of the hands of the populous. I don't understand why the people of this country don't stand up and demand a government that does not tread on their rights. New restrictions, new laws, new guidelines piled on top of one another year after year, they all add up to give us as Americans less choice and less freedom. It is easy for some one like Bloomberg who has the protection of the state and likely the protection of private security to be okay with everyone else losing their guns, just as it is easy for the man in the White House to be okay with having everyone x-rayed at the airport.

But why are we okay with that?

The Dark Knight Rises - Batman - Spoilers and Metaphors

Last night I watched the last installment of director and writer Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy: The Dark Knight Rises. I had set my expectations for this film at "tentatively positive." Could it possibly top The Dark Knight? Even the first of the three, Batman Begins, presents a challenging film to beat. To me it was doubtful.

Good vs. Evil - Retrieved from Breitbart.com.

I cannot say for sure if I consider this a "better" or "worse" film than the last one, but I can say that besides enjoying it immensely, I found it to be more full of metaphors than almost any film I think I have ever seen. 

SPOILER ALERT. If you haven't seen it The Dark Knight Rises yet, I would recommend not reading further until you do. Even if you don't plan on seeing it, please reconsider. You should see it. Then consider looking at this AFTER you have watched the film. Seriously, I don't want to ruin this movie for you.

Let us first take a macro-view of these films. As I was watching The Dark Knight Rises last night it hit me that all three films paint a vivid picture of three life stages: childhood/youth, seasoned/middle-aged, and senior/elderly. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne is a youth, indeed a child in the beginning. He is intelligent, and logical in thought, but he is still driven by seemingly youthful emotions. He has youthful energy. He has angst (but not Spider Man level angst). He has deep questions about life, and he is actively looking to find out who he is. As he embarks on his life of fighting crime, he finds himself learning the ins and outs of the trade one step at a time. He is no master yet.

In The Dark Knight Bruce Wayne has comfortably settled into his roll as Batman. He is professional. He is effective and efficient. He is in his prime. The many nights he has spent fighting crime have paid off, and Gotham city is reaping the benefits of the peace he has brought before and after the Joker affects his mayhem. He is confident and he no longer questions who he is or should be. He simply does what he does with the conviction of a man who has been doing the same thing for the same reasons for a respectable amount of time.

Bruce Wayne is all the worse for wear in The Dark Knight Rises. He is plagued my a leg injury and walks with a cane. His temples are flanked by greying hair. His posture is slightly stooped, his face sullen and his energy is lost. At the beginning of the film it is apparent he has been shut in for a few years, hiding both his identities from the public. For much of the film he yearns for death, maybe even wishes he had died when he was in his prime. 

But enough of the macro. Let's take a look at The Dark Knight Rises. About 15 minutes into the film I was slightly concerned. I was not impressed with the opening airplane scene. It was entertaining, interesting, and well executed but I thought it was over the top. Was all that necessary? But after all, it is a super-hero film. Who am I to complain about grandiose action scenes in a movie about Batman? Once things picked up though I was duly impressed. 

Some might look at the metaphors this film presented and think they came on a little strong. I liked them. By the end of the movie the symbolism and allusions to real world events was so strong that the movie felt as real as Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan. 

Bane is an excellent villain. He is a static character with seemingly little depth, but in his shallowness I believe there is great depth. To me Bane and his people represent an entire slue of thugs from the Taliban, to the Bolsheviks, and all the way back to the kangaroo courts of the French Revolution. He is an evil man, what many would call a psychopath. He uses violence, fear, and lies to project power over anyone he can, and he is good at it. 

When Bane enters the football stadium in Gotham City and addresses the crowd after having just taken over the city he says that he has liberated them and that Gotham now belongs to the people. Of course it is a lie. Gotham is now controlled by the mercenary soldiers at Bane's command who murder and kidnap throughout the city at will. Further chaos ensues as the people of Gotham, those who embrace this notion that it is now a city of the people, go on wanton campaign to pillage and destroy everything that previously fell under the ownership of the wealthy. This is all unapologetically a picture of communism and socialism that we saw spread so often in the 1900s. 

Now the city is isolated, bridges to the outside world destroyed, and external troops held back by the threatened use of a nuclear bomb. Gotham is now North Korea with foreign aid trucks making food deliveries and everything. Christopher Nolan even goes far as to make it winter in Gotham, giving it that cold, empty, snowy, Soviet look that everyone pictures in their heads when they think of North Korea. 

The pockets of resistance in Gotham are every resistance movement that have existed under totalitarian regimes for so long. They remind me most of the French underground during WWII. 

When the US special operations forces show up to aid this resistance movement and are mowed down by the mercenaries, their bodies are hung from a bridge. This is where the film feels most real for me. In March 31, 2004 four American defense contractors in Fallujah, Iraq were killed, they were dragged through the streets, and two were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

An underlying theme of the film is the battle between "waiting on the Federal government" and getting things done yourself. When police commissioner Gordon meets deputy commissioner Foley, who has decided to hide in his own house to wait for the federal government to come and rescue them, Gordon pleas with him to come out and help. He understands that the city must do what it needs to do on its own, that the federal government cannot help. Indeed Christopher Nolan appears to be a fan of action by private citizens and state/local government over federal government.

There are far more metaphors, imagery, and symbolism in this film than what I have mentioned, but these are some of the highlights. If you have ignored my plea to not read this until you have seen the film, then once again, I highly recommend seeing it. I might even see it again. 

A side-note: I feel I cannot help but allude briefly to the shooting that occurred at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado on Friday, July 20, 2012. My prayers go out to those involved and affected by what happened. As has happened for years and years now, many people are using this event as an opportunity to further their political agendas whether pro gun control or pro guns. My opinion on the matter is as strong as ever, but I don't think it prudent to use this tragedy to spout my beliefs on the subject. I've seen the argument made that another person with a gun opening fire on the shooter would have just made the situation worse in that dark, crowded, tumultuous theater. I've also seen the argument made that he could have been stopped much earlier if someone had shot him. Both scenarios are certainly possible, but there is know what to know what could have happened or what would have happened had things been different; only what did happen.

Meritocracy and Big Government

The Washington Times posted a video and transcript of a speech by Obama on Friday in which the President said, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." To avoid taking this out of context, please read the full text below.

      There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

Before I explain how I really feel about this, let me first point a few things out. The President makes some valid points. There are a lot of smart, hard working people out there. The implication is that they don't always end up in as good of positions as their peers, which may not be any fault of their own. This can certainly be true. It's also true that we do have teachers, family, friends, an existing infrastructure, and more that can help us to achieve what our goals. It's true that the Internet wasn't "invented on its own." It was in fact created by the Department of Defense. His overall message is that when we succeed not only because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. That is often the case as well.

So it would seem that the main point that he wanted to make was not "you didn't build your business," but rather, "we work well together."

But what's the heart of what he's saying? By nature businesses are working together. They are groups of people that can include shareholders, board members, executives, managers, employees, and the support of customers. I don't think this is a nebulous, ambiguous, but inspiring call to the people of America to just work together. It's a shout out to those who are like-minded who believe that bigger government is better.

There was a lot of media reaction to the quote, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that," but that's not really what gets me as much as what he said in the paragraph before that. Let's review:

I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Meritocracy. That's a word that's been thrown around a lot lately. Is it a term of endearment? Certainly not. In political/social/economic commentary it is a word spoken with a certain amount of disdain. A meritocracy, generally speaking, is a system in which power, rewards, responsibilities, recognition, etc. are based on merit, which would would typically include thins like hard work, intelligence, creativity, experience, background, education, training, loyalty, and more.

In our case, meritocracy does not define our system of government so much as our socioeconomic system. People ascend in class, financial position, and power based on many of the previously mentioned merits, or at least that's how it should work. Of course there are shortcomings. People cheat and lie. People misjudge one another. Measuring one merit against another can be tricky, and certain merits may lose value without us noticing.

But then this system is no more flawed than any other. That is to say, it is hampered by the same obstacle present in all of civilizations endeavors past, present, and future. That is human nature. We are prone to error, prone to do what is wrong, prone to take advantage. That doesn't mean we should not strive to be better, but it does mean that no system contrived by man can get around this simple flaw.

But I digress. What Obama implies by saying "There are a lot of smart people out there," and, "there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there," is essentially that you are no smarter or harder working than the rest of them, so why do you deserve any better? Am I wrong? I am being sincerely honest when I say please contact me in some way if you think I have interpreted this incorrectly. I would like to know what you think.

And here lies the heart of our societies growing disdain for meritocracy. Deep down many of us truly believe that the rich, the powerful, the one percent are no smarter or harder working than us. It is so easy to believe that life handed them the winning lottery tickets. They inherited it. They got lucky in the stock market. They took advantage of hard-working men and women like me and made millions. They just got lucky.

This is the heart of envy. I am not a rich person, but I am not without imagination. I have within me a desire to start businesses. I want to create and build and help usher in a new era, but I understand the risks and costs of such an enterprise, and therefore I understand the risks and costs that have been accepted by those who have gone down that route.

To me, and I could be wrong, the heart of what Obama is saying is that the rich, the wealthy, those who  run and own businesses get more, which they owe to society, so they should pay society more. But the thing is, they do. Not only is the tax system already set up to where the rich pay a higher percent, but even if it were a flat tax, they would still pay more. If everyone pays 10% of their income, then those with the highest incomes still pay the most.

Currently our culture is undergoing a battle of philosophies. One philosophy asks for more guidance and regulation by the state for a harmonious society, and the other asks for more freedom and less intervention for a more harmonious society. Both sides do hope for success and a good standard of living, but both have completely separate beliefs on how to get there. I, for one, believe that when you set catch-all standards and regulations, you don't tend to bring everyone up to a certain level. Instead you bring everyone down to that level.

Why Internet Memes Are Destroying America

Let's start with the title of this post, "Why Internet Memes Are Destroying America." Most of you will look at that title and think something to the affect of, "That seems a little extreme." You would be right. It's very "extreme."

So often when we "surf the web" we scroll through lists of links: news stories, blogs, pictures, videos - we read the titles and continue on with our day. We get the gist. We don't have time to explore every piece of the Internet, and that's okay. We have better things to do.

But little pieces of information nipping at our subconscious mind have a way of affecting the way we think, the way we see the world around us. Of course, some people have an almost ever-present layer of questioning that they wear to protect themselves from wayward misinformation. We call these people "skeptics." Skeptics seem to have a natural defense against this sort of information, but that is not to say they are completely immune to being swayed in this manner. On the other end of the spectrum are people who will believe anything they see or hear without questioning the validity of what they see. We call these people "sheep."

For sake of equity perhaps I should step back and alter my terms. Deep down skeptics enjoy being called skeptics. There is a sense of pride in knowing that you are shrewd enough to catch any piece of information that seems even remotely suspect before accepting it. Being somewhat skeptical myself, I think I would know. So let's not give skeptics the satisfaction. We'll call them "doubters." As for sheep. Isn't that a little harsh? No one would be happy about being labeled a sheep. Let's call them "trusters." So we have doubters and trusters, but as with fatalists and non-fatalists very few people fall into either one of these camps completely. Most of us reside somewhere in the middle. Almost everyone accepts at least some pieces of information on face value, and there are some pieces of information that almost no one accepts no matter how trusting they are.

But as I mentioned earlier - You don't have all day. You have important things to do. So let's get back to memes. Information is important. Whether or not we accept information is what shapes our world view. The way it is presented affects our world view. Whether you call them skeptics or doubters, sheep or trusters, they are the same people. The facts remain the same. But the perception can be altered considerably.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with what a meme is, Merriam-Webster defines it as, "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." In modern Internet terms that means a picture with text, usually in a somewhat clever, humorous manner to get a message across or entertain. For instance, the image to the left is a fairly popular version of a Rick Santorum meme. This picture is circulated throughout many websites, and different people edit the text to say different things, most of which are meant to deride Santorum for his various beliefs, statements, or actions.

All politics aside, let's get down to the function of this meme. The picture is not a bad one, but it is meant to evoke a certain boy scout smugness that people have associated with Santorum. The text does a couple of things. The top text lets the reader know that Santorum is opposed to the act or orientation of homosexuality. The bottom line builds upon his already boy scout smugness by implicitly insulting his wardrobe.

The beauty of this image (from the creators point of view) is it leaves nothing to argue against. As far as I understand, Santorum opposes gay marriage and believes that homosexuality is a sin. I have also seen him wearing sweater vests. Indeed if one were to argue with it at all, the originator could always say, "Aren't you taking this clearly nonsensical image a little bit too seriously?" It's like John Stewart from The Daily Show, who chides news personalities who publicly disagree with or attack him for what he says on his show by making the claim that (and I paraphrase) it's a comedy show. And I must applaud Mr. Stewart. It is a comedy show, but he knows what he's doing. He has a political leaning, and he's got a good method for presenting his point of view without leaving room for rebuttal. Nicely done.

But what does this sort of presentation of information do to our public discourse? What is it based on? These are witty catch-phrases and clever multimedia presentations, but they lack evidence, logic, or intellectual character.

This is a good one. The Internet has a fascination with Newt Gingrich's interest in a moon base. From a sci-fi point of view it was awesome. "Bring on the future." But many saw it as a bizarre, wasteful, indicative-of-Newt's-insanity position. Forget about the fact that it's possible to spend money on one thing while cutting spending on others and still cut a total budget. Forget about the fact that MOON BASE was not Newt's key position. Forget about the fact that much of it could theoretically be paid for by private funding. This image may leave the reader feeling that Newt is both hypocritical and comically insane.

To be fair, political memes do not only exist to attack conservative political figures. Memes also exist that attack liberal political figures and various stereotypical personalities. The one to the left here is the "college liberal" meme. Let's say you're a conservative, and you've been reading this. You saw the last two memes and you weren't really able to identify with them. Instead of thinking, "Santorum sure is lame," or, "Man, Newt Gingrich really is crazy," you thought, "How disrespectful," or, "Stupid liberals... coming up with nonsensical pictures to make this guy look bad."

But now you're looking at the "college liberal" meme and you're thinking, "Hah hah! That's right!" Don't get me wrong. So am I. I see the Occupy Wall Street folks or other protestors that have been doing their thing over the years and I can't help but be annoyed by their antics, but do I take the time to question the logic of this picture? Who is this a picture of? Do we actually know what her political leanings are? Do all people holding peaceful protests start fights with the cops? What percentage do?

At the heart of these memes is an attack on hypocrisy or perceived hypocrisy. Deep down inside we hate hypocrisy. We hate it and it's easy to detect. Not to say we shouldn't condemn hypocrisy, but are we not all hypocrites? Do we not all say one thing while doing another at least once in our lives? From that point of view it makes sense that Jesus was so outspoken in his opposition to hypocrisy. He was the first and only non-hypocrite to have ever walked on the face of this planet.

Are Internet memes destroying America? No. And saying that anything is "destroying America" should be held suspect. We can't see the future, so we can't know that any one thing or group of things specifically will destroy America. Maybe it would be more accurate to have titled this blog, "Why Internet Memes Are Working Together With Various Other Potentially Harmful Things To Erode At The Perceptions Of Some Americans."

For those of you who are not familiar with memes, you should know that there are plenty of innocuous, entertaining, funny ones that are harmless, and definitely not destroying America. Even the very political ones can be enjoyed without necessarily destroying or corrupting your mind. But maybe an even bigger danger than swaying those in the middle is polarizing those at the extremes. As a conservative libertarian, when I see a political meme attacking libertarianism, conservatism, or individuals or stereotypes from those camps it isolates me. It makes me think, "Oh yeah?" And I proceed to pick holes in the arguments or positions of said memes. Then I see the ones attacking liberal personalities or stereotypes and I think, "That's right. What hypocrites." It's dehumanizing. That girl in the college liberal meme - she's a real person. I know nothing about her, but a picture of her with some text written by I-have-no-idea gives me that smug sense of conservative pride.

If you're reading this, please don't think that I hate memes. I have spent plenty of time perusing such sites as www.quickmeme.com, clicking next, next, next, and getting laugh after laugh. My intent here is to make you aware that memes are an easy way to sway or cement an opinion or point of view without any solid facts or logic. And one meme at a time is somewhat effective, but consider that there are tens of thousands of these, and when you read that many, no matter how many "defenses" you've put up, it is bound to affect the way you think in some way.

An innocent, funny meme for your enjoyment: