in defence of liberal, knowing, A liberal will get you killed!

A liberal will get you killed!
A prof of mine started a course with this statement. And although he was absolutely correct, I still defend liberal as correct.

Of all the traits that can be ascribed to the term liberal, the one thing that must be for a person to be a liberal is a belief in “human rights”. That there is some intrinsic , right, truth, or justice, that stands above mans laws. In this way the criticism that “liberals have a new religion” is not all wrong. As having a “truth” that stands above mans law, has as its most close parallel those that hold a “religious truth”.
In this way the US constitution, and its affirmation that its “self evident that all men were created equal” can be seen as a pure liberal statement.
The thing is because we do actually believe that there is a “right” above mans laws, liberals will not respect mans law as the final decider.
For the “right to life” side, they actually consider a blastocyst, or an embryo, as a human. Then as liberal thinkers, they have no choice but to intervene or fail to conform to mans law. They really do need to defend the rights of those humans. So even as its currently the “political right” that is against abortion, their fight is a liberal one. The only separator for “the left” is that currently the left doesn't consider the embryo as human life.

So now to why will a liberal get you killed. While because we believe that human rights are above mans law, we cant sit back in good conscience and allow, a government, nation, religion, culture, or group, to behave in a way that contravenes our ideas. In this way we invite the the calls of “thought police”, and all the parallels to  totalitarianism that's levelled against us.
The thing that the detractors don't seem to understand is that to a real liberal, the only real judgment we  consider valid is, if in the face of a wrong are you a coward or a responder.
So while “the right” by definition are concerned with stability and maintaining the status quo,  are not only willing but want nothing more than,  to live and be left alone. Its us, the liberal who insists on interfering with others.

In order to be true to our beliefs, its us, the liberal, that has to force a change. We are the ones who need to invade another country, we are the ones who cant abide by anothers religion or heritage, when we see a wrong. And its this imperative to interfere that will get you killed. (Because others hate being interfered with).

Thing is the writer of this does believe in human rights. I will admit that we occasionally have “misunderstandings” , or as outsiders would say, “wrong ideas”. I look back in horror and realize it was  ‘liberals’ who thought we needed to introduce the “savage” to our (at the time) “truth” of Catholicism. And now we feel the moral imperative to introduce peoples in the same area of our scepticism.

But as a liberal I do believe that there is  truth above mans law. I try to temper my actions with the knowledge that, all humanities, (let alone my), logic is far from answers on most things. Because of that I try and keep my intrusions into others lives at a minimum. But I have to respond in some way. As a liberal I have to either accept myself a coward or take an action. I do have sympathy for all those who are being “put out” by our actions. They don't really care about, gays, trans, hats worn by religious follows, or 99% of the things that us liberals want to fight about. It must feel shitty to be told your grammar is suddenly wrong, or that people are calling you “hateful” for doing the same thing you've always done.
Just like the other side of the political spectrum we have our fair share of emotionals and gut thinkers. For all liberals, I’d like to apologize to anyone who was shit on by a non-thinker. Instead of saying “Hay that term is considered an insult now”, I’ve seen liberals act like you are the actual haters, and they have forgot (never really spent the thinking time to understand), that we are trying to actually answer to our “higher truth”.
Anyway following a liberal may get you killed. But as a liberal, I choose that above cowardice in the face “evil” I must choose action.

Why the Burka-Ban wont stand.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCoC) ruled that Sikhs were required to wear hard hats even though it was a restriction of their religious freedoms. (The seminal case on this is Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder from 1985.) The Court applied a 3 part test to see if the employees religious freedoms could rightly be infringed. This test is where I think the Quebec law will eventually fall. Unfortunately that means that some provincial worker will need to be fired for wearing the Hijab, and she will also have to have enough money to raise a legal complaint (justice ain't cheep in Canada).

The test for a bone fide occupational requirement (BFOR), has 3 steps the rule must pass before its considered a justifiable infringement on religious freedoms: (adapted from the above mentioned hardhat case.)

Now looking to the “burka ban” lets go over the test.

• Step 1: Was the rule about hard hats or respiratory protection adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the job (safety)?

1) ScoC will have to rule if Quebec’s claim that seeing a face is rationally connected to the job of providing government service. If they can't this whole law fails right here. But if it passed we go to step 2.


• Step 2: Was the rule adopted in an honest and good faith belief that the standard is necessary for the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose (safety)?

2) Again the ScoC will have to decide if this law is adopted in “good faith” and if seeing a face is necessary for fulfilling that. Here each position will have to be considered. Does this face covering actually infringe on a bus drivers ability to do the job? How about the passenger? How about a call centre worker? Does not showing my face actually infringe on my ability to take a payment for a ticket? Lets say somehow the law passes this step as well, then we go continue on.



• Step 3: Was the standard reasonably necessary to accomplish that legitimate purpose? Can the employer accommodate individual employees without imposing undue hardship upon the employer?

3) The second part of Step 3 is going to be virtually impossible for Quebec to get passed. This “Duty to accommodate” clause is a big part of what makes Canada an "inclusive" nation. Quebec will have to show that it causes an “undue hardship” on them to accommodate a worker to wear a hijab. And that there is not a solution that can be easily implemented that meats both parties needs. For instance if they claim it is a security concern, can the issue be solved by requiring the lady to lift the veil and show her face briefly and privately on her way in to the facility? Or a whole host of other workarounds for each job. And I cant see How the Quebec government is going to be able to get this passed.

Keep in mind RCMP officers can wear the hijab, its going to be really hard for Quebec to argue that a kiosk worker cant do her job wearing the same thing. 

Now a lot of the concerns about allowing the hijab boil down to a few actually irrelevant arguments. 

* "If we cant see the face a criminal can get away"

This law only has bearing on those receiving and giving government services. So if you think a bank robber is going to stop and fill out a healthcare form on his way home you may have a point. But I think we can see that's not really connected to this law. 

* "I cant wear a hoodie or sunglasses in the liquor store"

While some places that sell alcohol are private stores and make up their own rules, those are not Laws. Agreed that in Quebec hard alcohol is sold in government stores though. Here we see another absurd part of the law. While they could say that the customer must show their face to match their ID, this is not what the law says, it says both the customer and the worker must show their face. And as the push of my argument is that the law wont stand because of its demand that the employees show their face, which has nothing to do with the customer proving their age.
*"we have other laws saying you cant be naked in public, how is this different?"

Again here we have a issue with the degree of the laws scope. The Indecent exposure laws, have been continually challenged to now women can walk around topless in much of Canada and it's likely that provinces that have not had the law challenged will either follow suit or simply refuse to lay charges. but again this is not related to the work aspect of the law. The "dress code" interpretation is just as open to religious freedom laws as any other part of the law, 

* "The government need to be non-religious"
This is actually the argument Quebec is using to put the law into place. The mistake is that they are equating non-religious with anti-religious. The government needs to pass laws that apply to all citizens, it cannot promote or discriminate based on religious beliefs.  Thats a Non-Religious stance. But by refusing to allow its workers to adhere to their religious beliefs while at work they are taking an Anti-religious stance. The claim that seeing a government worker wearing a religious item will make the average citizen falsely believe that the government is an agent of that religion is deeply condescending. 

NOTE: Its been pointed out to me that I have used "Burka", and "Hijab" interchangeably  and they are in fact different.   The RCMP currently only allow the Hijab which does not cover the face.
I fell the rest of the argument still stands, if you correct my other uses of Hijab to the Burka I was thinking of. (Thanks Reese) 

Sources:

National Post Quebec passes bill banning niqab, burka while receiving public services
CBC News RCMP allows Muslim women Mounties to wear hijab
Canadian Occupational Health and safety magazine /legal Clash of the titans

I dont understand Transgender

Ok I may be on the wrong side of history here. And am open to evolving my opinion if someone explains to me the error in my thinking.

It was only Like 2 years ago that “progressives” were touting the ideas that we should not force Gender Roles on children. “Let them play how they want to.” was the basic idea. It stemmed form the idea that as we move to actual equality between the sexes, little boys and girls, should be allowed to peruse whatever interested them. If little boys enjoy nurturing games with dolls, and little girls like construction games with Tonka Trucks, So be it. It didn't mean they were gay or “different”.

Over all Gender Equality seems to be a march toward a non-gendered society. Women CEO’s and Stay at Home Dads, should not be noteworthy, but should be just as common place. I remember thinking that Maxim Magazine was just Vogue for men, and a step toward non-gendered society.

So I am absolutely blown away by the surge in transgender issues. Why are we even discussing transgender? Or Any gender? Why do we want to enforce gender roles? Dude in a dress, Girl in work boots? Who cares? Wear and do what makes you happy.

Now I want to be clear here. I am in no way talking about transsexuals. Just transgender. (Transsexual is basically a person who feels the Sex of their body is misaligned with themselves. Transgender on the other hand is the feeling that their Gender is misaligned) *I am aware these are over simplified definitions, and also intend no value judgment on the term misaligned.

Terms like Gender Fluid are being thrown around now. I can relate to some of the ideas covered under that banner. There was a stir recently about a couple that wear cloths out of the others closet and being on the cover a magazine. That to me seems legit. The couple seems to have an understanding of who they are. They seem to be saying “the clothes don’t make the man”, or woman as the case may be. To me the term "Gender Fluid" is a half way of going to Non-Gendered, but scared to give anything up.

It seems to me that the discussion of transgender has eclipsed the discussion of gender roles. Now I’m not against treating people with respect, and giving equal rights to anyone. I’m just not seeing on how enforcing Gender Roles, is progress.

There was a time that the societal gender roles stated that women could be nurses, and men could be doctors. As women went through med school and men started taking nursing jobs, The ideas we were promoting was that it didn’t matter if you held the Stethoscope or the Thermometer, your social role was defined by what you choose to do, not your sex. So why now are we trying to say that your choice to wear a dress or makeup should be a relevant societal decider?

Anyway, We went from Sexual equality, to the erosion of Gender roles, and I don’t understand why we now need to fight for the right to assert those gender roles. Should not Trans-gender men just be viewed as a logical step in the feminist fight for equality?

The whole point of this post is, I don’t understand whats happening, not to “push back” against a movement. I am someone who would prefer a non-gendered society. I can assert that I don’t care what gender signalling items and activities any person wants to take part in. I don’t care if those signalling items match the gender role society has typically assigned to your sex.

I do however Care if you are being discriminated against. Is not transgender discrimination, simply sexism? A person of the other sex would not be discriminated against in the same situation, so the basis of the discrimination is entirely sex based. I thought we had already decided that your dangley bits are to be irrelevant to your role in society.

If you have the time, Please let me know if I have something wrong. Or if there is a way we can get back to the idea of equality for ALL.

Thanks  

Here are 5 things to know to have a happy dating life

Parents please teach your children this.

I’ve spent the last few days across social media and I have to keep reiterating versions of this. Its saddening.

Look, you don’t “get someone to like you”. There are 4 or things to know to have a happy dating life:

1) Get hobbies and interests.

Like more than one, and at least a few that have to do with going to places other people are. Look its OK to be into fashion and enjoy consuming media. But that cant be your main focus. If your on a date and don’t have other interests to talk about, don’t be so surprised that the only people who want to go on a second date are the ones who will treat you like an object. Put down the Fashion Mag and literally pick any other magazine off the shelf. You may never learn how to perfectly wear (latest fashion item). But you will read about something to make you an interesting person.

If you often find yourself Bored, then you may be a boring person. Cultivate more interests.

Your boy-friend or girl-friend should be your friend. Now pop culture has done a number on girls. If you are to believe movies and TV shows, girls are interested in talking about Fashion, and boys. What is she then going to talk about with her boyfriend. If however she meets someone at an archery range, they have things to talk about.

2) Learn how to be wrong.

Now that you have started having all these hobbies and interests, you are probably developing opinions. You are wrong on some of them. Everyone has incorrect opinions sometimes. Learn how to decide what types of information will sway your opinion. Learn to accept being wrong, and to accept others being wrong. And NO saying “we’ll just agree to disagree” doesn’t count. Thats basically saying my mind is closed to the possibility I’m wrong, and I am not smart enough to find a way to explain it to you. That is not to say you have to fight every battle. You can for instance decide, I think your wrong on how to hang the toilet paper but don’t care enough about the issue to discuss it.

3) Own your word

How do you keep from looking wisshy-washy now that you’ve accepted that you can be wrong and are able to change your mind? By owning your word in every other way. Make a habit of not making promises. Because when you make a promise, you keep it. If you promise to wash someones car, and Christ returns, You have to tell Christ to put judgment day on hold, because you have things to do. If you promise to be at your nieces birthday, and 3 people call in sick to work, you have to tell your boss your going, even if that means loosing your job. Be the kind of person that will not break a promise ever, and therefore only promises very few things. Owning your word also means not lying. Don’t insinuate or imply what you don’t mean. Talk flatly and openly the truth. I know your Dog or Cat, knows when your sad, but the only real way humans can share the emotions and ideas the have inside is with words. If you think people are believing your lies, you won’t believe they understand you when you need them.

4) Take care of yourself.

Dress for the body you have, not the one you are working towards. You don’t have to look like a model. (Even the models I know, don’t look like “that” when going to the lake to hang out.) But you want to take care of yourself. We all have differing bodies, and that's OK. You just need to be clean and look like you care about yourself. The way you look signals others how to treat you, so make an effort to look presentable. You don’t need to be “dolled up” just to go hang out, but take the time to be clean and groomed. Taking a little time each day to take care of your body also help you feel good about yourself.

Place a premium on yourself, by holding yourself to a standard of at least 10% higher than everyone else.

5) Love your life.

You are, interesting, adaptable, honourable, and healthy. Its OK to be happy. Happy people attract others. When you see someone loving their live its a huge turn on. So love your life. Take the time and effort to work on problems that may arise, and plan for your future. This is your life and you are the only one who is ever going to be in control of it. So love it.

Will this all prevent you from ever having your heart broke? No, of course not. Will all the people you attract be worthy of you and be as honourable as you? No. But you will be in the drivers seat of your life. You will have people wanting to be near you and date you. And as a bonus all the time that others spend feeling bad about themselves trying to “get” this person, or attract that one, you have spent learning and trying new things, and keeping yourself interested.

It wont always be simple, but with every choice, you try and do what you would respect the most if someone else had to make the same choice. This way you become the kind of person you would respect, and that will attract the kind of people you would want to be with.

A message to Baby-boomers

Hay BOOMERS! How come:   When you wanted them you called them “Rights” But now when we need them they are “entitlements”   You had the Government subsidize education But now we should just be happy we can get a loan.   You preached “free love” But we are sexual deviants, or are mentally ill if we don’t fit gender norms.   You had Draft Dodgers But our soldiers cant be given assistance?   You had government pay to wire all your homes for the telephone, and fund public libraries. But we pay for our own phones and internet, and we are antisocial and rude.   You continually voted for more government services than you were willing to pay for in taxes.  But we need to have Austerity Budgets and cut backs?

After adjusting for inflation;A Collage Degree now cost many times more than you paid for a house and land   (how long was your mortgage?)Jobs Pay a fraction of what they did. They are part time and and have little to no benefits.

  (if you can find one)

We are the first generation since the Industrial Revolution who will not live as long, or earn more than the generation before us!

You drove this system off a bridge, we have none of the benefits you had and all of the bills for it. We have none of the profits, but are paying all of the environmental clean up costs of your lifestyle!

Before you start to say anything about an “Entitled Snowflake Millennial”, Just remember you built this and raised us!

Now I love my Mom, and we all do, but STOP SHITTING ON US! Start helping us! Vote WITH us for progressive policies!

You want to make this place “Great Again”? Help us put back in place all the services that helped you, the services that have been cut steadily since Thatcherism and Reaganomics.

sluts and Ice Cream

“SLUT!”

Why is this an insult? If I enjoy ice cream and have found away for people to want to share their ice cream with me often, and I don’t have to pay for it, should I be insulted? I don’t think so. Maybe I should buy a gym membership to be sure I don’t have unwanted side effects. Other than that no one would judge.

Now sluts can be any gender and any orientation (other than asexual, I think). But for much of this im going to use “she” as much of the insult is aimed at females.

“Some slut goes to the bar and brings home randos.”

Maybe the insult has to do with her “being used” by men. But then shouldn't the disdain be directed at the user? Also is she being used? Again the ice cream analogy.

Maybe looking down on the fact shes trading her sex to try and get something like commitment or attention from the “rando”. But for a Slut to be a slut, commitment cant be part of her aims. If shes “giving it up” just for attention, then maybe she deserves our pity not our anger (or our compassion and attention).

Maybe the concern is that she would be unfaithful in her relationships. But it seems odd that our word of condemnation for untrustworthy people would be gendered and focusing only on the multitude of partners. As if cheating with just one person is less of a betrayal than cheating with many people. Also the term “slut” is not reserved for people in supposedly monogamous relationships.

Maybe its that we assume she doesn't like sex, and therefore is degrading her self for some unknown ends.

If she doesn't enjoy the sex then why is she a slut? Also if shes not enjoying it, is it rape?

Or is the focus her bad economics?

I think the Economics argument is close to why “Slut” is an insult. Its that the Insulter has placed a high value on sex, and feels like it should only be traded for a premium. I can see that if I found someone willing to sell me a Tesla for $100, I may consider them a “sucker”. Admittedly I would look down on them a little for not knowing the value of what they had. However I’d assume they had their reasons, and I’d be happy cause then I’d be eating ice cream in a Tesla! But a better parallel would be for a Tesla owner to tell me they would let me drive their car if if I buy us ice cream to eat after.

From what I’ve read (and from a little of my own experiences), The Slut Phase is a healthy way for a person to experience their sexuality. It help a person to be able to acknowledge they enjoy sex, understand and define the sexual part of their identity, and can help a person to feel attractive. It appears its a common part of many peoples lives. And usually doesn't last much past early adulthood. But the gender rolls in our society commend males when they are going through that phase, and condemn females. Some of the readings I’ve done have stated that this may be based on the ideas that a man owns his wife, and a non virgin would be an inferior product for him to own.

Personally I don’t own anyone, and am not owned. I don’t live my life for other peoples approval (anymore). I try to hold off from judging all but acts of wilful harm to other people. In my opinion “Cheater” should carry the loathing and connotations that currently “slut” has. For a cheater is braking the trust of a person they claim to love. While a slut is simply engaging in an enjoyable act and sharing that enjoyment with willing partners.

Any way, why do you think slut is an insult. Should it be?

this system is FAIL

This system is fail

After the fall of the communist block, there was little reason for maintaining anything more than the myth of the middle class. Those in power have consistently pushed down the middle classes, to the point nobody even discusses it anymore.

Those in power have also been amassing the tools need to extract grater than Soviet control of the masses. From Military droids, to indoctrinating the populous with delivery and hobby droids. (tinfoil hat prevents me from seeing if anyone has posted on YouTube a Glock wired to a droid yet).

To mass surveillance, of script readers scanning conversations looking for dissidents (facebook).

We are living in a steady march toward totalitarianism.

The system of Capitalism was only functional for the populous when Capitalism had to prove to the populous living under Communism that they should overthrow that system. But as always without competition, Capitalism does not work and Monopolies become exploitative.

So can we come out from the Capitalist mind set and develop a system of distributing goods that can work for the populous without the need of a competitor to keep it operational?

Please???

 - I am aware that being unemployed and looking for (and failing even to find) underemployment as the option out has an effect on my thinking. But this is a growing class of people, so I don’t think that invalidates the idea

Trigger Warning "Snowflakes"

Trigger warning; you are not going to like this.

Lets talk about the “snowflakes who require trigger warnings”.

First I’m all for trigger warnings. Not because I am, or I think others are, delicate snowflakes. Quite the opposite. Anyone who knows me knows I am liable to bring up “Taboo topics” at any time. While discussing puppies at a beach, I may interject with a humorous(?) remark about abortion, Religion, Race, or any other thing that crosses my mind. And I don’t think I should be required to wear a t-shirt with “CAUTION, TRIGGER WARNINGS” emblazoned on the front. BUT... And you knew there was a but;

That’s not what trigger warnings are about. Let me explain why trigger warnings are a good idea.

I’ve known people who have suicided. And can clearly recall the emotional and mental state that myself and others were in during the aftermath. So when a coworker of mine was going through a suicide death in her family I made a note not to make comments or jokes around the subject. At least for a while. Because I’m not that kind of an ass-hole. At that point in time my coworker probably didn't have the emotional energy to discuss, dismiss, or otherwise deal with my general lack of couth.

In schools as the profs cant alter their entire curriculum or know the details of all the students lives, maybe a Trigger Warning sign is just the polite thing to do.

But manners be dammed, there is a better reason. I remember being in a class where I was paying over $700 to occupy my seat. I would participate in the discussions because that's a lot of money to me and I wanted to get as much value out of the course as I could.

One such discussion had another student get up and leave the room crying. I don’t remember the rest of the class. As we continued with a tinge of guilt, in slightly hushed tones. The first part of the following lecture in that class was taken up with the prof having to announce some disclaimer. In essence I lost 3 hours of a 40-hr course. About $52.00 of the class I paid for.

Do I think a class about criminal justice should avoid talking about rape? Of course not. But should someone who was raped the night before have to sit through a class discussing rape the next morning? No, I think that he or she should be able to see the “Trigger Warning: Sexual assault discussion”, sign and be able to make the decision to go over the class notes at a later date.

Now I know the argument that there are no trigger warnings in real life.

2 things: First, what makes you think university is not real life. I bet being raped feels pretty real to the astonishing high number of students who are raped on campuses.

Second; In real life, my advice to my coworker was to use any sick or vacation time she had, and go home and grieve. To come back to work once she was able to. Not because she is a “delicate snowflake”, but because she is strong and our team followed her emotional cues.

If you have not had an issue that was so bad that it hijacked your thoughts and interfered with your daily actions, be thankful. Even the strongest of us need down time, and there is no shame in recognizing you cant deal with some things today.

And to all my friends who are thinking, “Sinn, I cant deal with YOUR shit today!”, I reply, “I hope you will call me tomorrow then”. :)

This was going to be one point in a reply to the “Attack on Free Speech” narrative that is going around. But due to its length I think I’ll let it stand as is.  

Also, I so would wear a t-shirt with “CAUTION, TRIGGER WARNINGS” emblazoned on the front. if someone made me one.- XXL if your wondering 

Sinn Says Some- a response to the Republican mass shooting

If you are going to push people to their braking point, Don’t be so fucking alarmed when they break.

I am not condoning the actions and I want to be really clear here; IT’S NOT OK TO KILL...

But; and you knew there was a “But” coming; lets just take a moment and look in to the recent Republican Mass Shooting.

No lets not wade in the “Gun Control” debate. As its been said and will continue to be said after each Mass Shooting.

Ok so the Gun-man asked if the baseball players were Republicans and after they stated affirmative, he opened fire. So this is clearly a politically motivated crime. I understand that the victims families lost people they loved. People who cared for their family, had senses of humour, and filled many roles and places in the hearts of those nearest to them. The loss of such people is a travesty.

The gun man however wasn't killing 3 dimensional people; wasn’t aiming to leave a hole in the lives of the victims families; wasn't lashing out at fathers, husbands and family members. He was instead killing “Republicans”.

People who have passed laws that will remove health care coverage for thousands; people who cut taxes on the extremely wealthy so that programs and government services will no longer have funding.

Now these congress men were not aiming to have single mothers pushed further in to despair; Not focusing on leaving holes in families as loved ones die because they cant afford treatments. No these laws were enacted because in the calculations and ideologies of the current republican congress, it is within the acceptable margins to, well Marginalize certain people.

For those that live in the margins though; this is a daily and consistent attack. When over 60% of your wages go to rent, and then the food and utilities continue to rise in price, you don't get to go home at the end of the day and forget about it. You don't get to spend your evenings golfing and considering other topics. No; you stay awake at night worrying and worry as you go to work lacking sleep and worry as you bus home and make supper.

Just as a child who is picked on at school everyday, spends over 50% of his life choking back tears, marginalized adults, spend the bulk of their lives being affected by those who marginalize them.

So lets look at this through the cold “realist” school of thought.

As the middle class shrinks, more and more people are pushed in to the margins. The political agreement of obeying societal laws in exchange for the benefits of living in the society becomes a less and less desirable arrangement.  When some of your dreams are attainable and your life offers you the luxury of being able to relax occasionally, the exchange for obeying the social norms seems like a good deal. But when there is little to no chance of improvement, there is little to no benefits to maintaining the social order. In prisons they know this and that's why they offer programs and events. Its the carrot to keep the majority in line.

No one joins the Taliban because they are close to a promotion, their bills are paid and after their retirement savings they have enough left over to go on vacation. No the radicalized are the marginalized.

As a realist, the rich don't pay taxes because it is the moral thing to do, they pay up because it is in their own best interest to appease the peasants. It is in their best interest to keep the machine that keeps them rich well lubricated.

Again I want to reiterate; IT’S NOT OK TO KILL! But when the picked on kid brings a gun to class its not hard to understand the “WHY?”.

If you are going to push people to their braking point, Don’t be so fucking alarmed when they break.

-Things I wanted to say but didn't make it in to the main monologue, 

1) In the last USA election , both Trump and Bernie supporters were largely people who felt "traditional government" was not considering their interests. Or in a word - "Marginalized". 

2) Society is like a game of Red-Rover, you win when everyone is included in on the same team.

3) Google defines ‘terrorism’ as: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Does this mean that because the targets were government not civilians, this doesn't count? Or is this “Radical Non-Islamic Terrorism”? - left out because I think it muddies the water, and goes against the “we need to be inclusive and supportive” narrative I was feeling as I wrote... its a shame cause the paragraphs I wrote were super inflammatory and bound to generate some Hate-mail responses.