Part 9--Why T.V. is Making You Dumber

TRUTH vs. FREE MONEY AND POWER

TRUTH : As already seen, the small fraction of Americans killed by a familiar acquaintance, or in an alcohol-related car crash, drastically overshadow all other killings/murders combined. In much of America, a similar reality can be seen by removing the average 12,998 killed by alcohol-related vehicle accidents but adding the murdered x-felons, plus those “murdered” while in the commission of a felony(their accomplices are charged with their deaths). Again, compared with those who appeared to be random innocently killed victims, the above constitutes a much greater number.

What makes us have the feelings we do regarding crime? We live in a very commercialized world and reminiscent of Nietzsche's quote " And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Media influences us just as much as our beliefs and expectations influence media. But we must begin this story at the ground level and build up from there.

Selling Violence

Even though the majority of “violent” crimes- including actual violence or its perceived threat thereof - committed by those affiliated with gangs are committed against rival gang members, or unaffiliated Criminals (i.e.) drug dealers, thieves, thugs etc., it's not something easily measured and in fact buried, by design or not,  from the public. It is just built into the system that way.  Examples of how it can happen are,  when the prosecution --including the police-- organize the conviction of a criminal who committed a crime against another criminal, the prosecution focuses on obtaining a conviction and punishment meant for innocent victims of a “higher” class, outside of the circumstances.

POWER: It also happens when a crime is used to influence the public vote. It goes as follows, create something for the public to fear that way they need you as their savior. Not only does it provide a platform for the politicians, but also sources of revenue from those standing to profit from tax allocations (e.g., similar to war and the Pentagon,  industry profiting from fear or more specifically prison, and crime prevention, etc.). Any politician trying to explain this would simply be attacked as soft on crime--even unpatriotic, it is a trick perfected in the Third Reich*. In this arena, the rule has become that of the moderate side continually being overwhelmed by the likes of those who have gained wealth and power by marketing fear into the public consciousness; gaining power by presenting scapegoats and enemies and dividing people accordingly.

This includes the diverse entities and organizations, which depend on fear to maintain prison and/ or law enforcement growth and/ or maintenance**. Whoever they are, politicians, police, private prisons, these  are the most powerful forces helping to create an American whom emotionally feels the chances of one of us, or someone close, being randomly victimized, injured and, possibly even more so, murdered (by a criminal's random acts) is a significant threat. Though their attempts may seem rather insignificant, with no one on the other side empowered to fight the fear message, their message self-perpetuates itself and overwhelms the truth.

Many of these same organizations also attempt, with even greater success, to help us believe it's best if the convicted receive punishments as long and harsh as God will allow. But vast amounts of statistics and scientific studies show that, generally, our media has not been giving us the truth, and in fact appears to have rather significantly succeeded in distorting our perceptions of reality.

With media outlets - as opposed to first-hand experience – continuously presenting us with images of violence and crime, we've come to believe- and expect to see-  that the evil predators waiting in the shadows are who we should be most worried about--with no hope for us insight. Why would they do this to us? Because, as in the words of John Stossel; "The media beast must be fed. Scares drive up circulation and ratings". ⑥

Studies show that television viewing habits expose Americans, on average, to 1,500-hours of television programming per year. All of this programming is designed exclusively to keep us buying,  keep us emotionally (as opposed to thoughtfully or informatively) affixed, involved, engulfed, and believing in the product. Whether that product (really just an idea) is the program or promoted through the program, or commercial. This in truth keeps interested parties growing and/or making money.

To sum up, what I've been attempting to communicate about this highly influential medium, to say it more simply I'll use a quote from David Rintels: former president of the Writers Guild of America, commenting about prime-time television, "television is one long lie."⑧

The continuous portrayal of violence in the media is staggering. Numerous studies show that crime is more than 10 times as prevalent on television programs and commercials than it is in real life. To find this one need not look for: According to FBI statistics, not including minor, often only verbal "regular assaults" only 0.5% of the American population teenage and up will be a victim of any sort of violent criminal act any given year. That's one half of one percent (of which concentrates in the inner-cities, filled with minorities).

Therefore, the reality is equivalent to one out of every two hundred television stations having a violent episode once a year. Not only has it been found heavy viewers hold relatively exaggerated views in regards to the number of crimes in society but studies by: C. Haney, and Manzolati, as well as M.B. Oliver, found heavy viewers tend to reverse the presumption of innocence, (making the accused guilty until proven innocent) instead believing the simple fact the defendants have been brought to trial is in fact proof that they're guilty.⑧  This seems to show that dramatized American television has become an indiscriminate, ever-present witness for the prosecution increasing the conviction rate in America.

News on television is supposed to be unbiased, or at least a trustworthy source of relevant information. One might suspect the news would help offset this explosion of violent TV as well as those cop-drama shows. Does our news bring us back down to earth?  No.  Our news does not help us understand our world and how we, as individuals, or country, fit in it.

 At their inception, news shows may have been about informing the public. But for the most part, idealism has given way to pragmatism and capitalism. They have a job to do, and it is not to teach us.  It is “to sell, sell sell”.

Hard news like governmental policy decisions and information regarding other countries affairs have steadily been getting replaced with things more entertaining like street crime. Not only do the media aim for more entertaining subjects, but they also aim to make those subjects more entertaining. Therefore they equate unbiased truth second to profit and entertainment. It is sales via good-for-business entertainment that brings in the money, not truth.

Even though crime has decreased significantly since the 1980's, reporting on crime has more than doubled.  Also increased are the reporting on products, celebrities, news and some scandals, emotional stories of average people. These things have steadily pushed relevant news off of our screens.  Today less than one percent of morning news is dedicated to foreign affairs⑭.

The state of our media today--far from helping us understand reality more--may as well have come from another planet. But it is this same media that influences us beyond our own understanding, as average citizens. It is this media which has us believing we need more counter-productive wars and war industry; draconian laws, ever-increasing prison sentences, and more prisons.

The media tells our population what to think, how we should react, and also how we should vote. But it also teaches us by what hostile person it chooses to broadcast.  Often when we are allowed to hear from people who may know this area of truth, we are not given the scientist or genius teacher. We are much more likely to be presented with a loud and angry black man, or some other divisive figure,(e.g., A. Sharpton, Rev. J. Jackson, Dr. M.E.Dyson) which does little to inform the informed while causing greater division amongst the sides. As for any good messages that might come out they are too different than what people are used to and Correctional Peace Officers Association), largely ignored, doubted, and misunderstood.

This cycle has led to the point we willingly take thousands of our own dollars and-in trust to give it to those whose livelihood depends on a strife, whether war or a growing prison population.

Though violent crime has not been as out of control as we have been led to believe, our rates of incarceration are. Today "the land of the free" holds more prisoners per capita than any other westernized nation in the world, from Greenland to Greece, Estonia to Australia and Canada, clear through to Patagonia. On top of this California holds more prisoners per capita than any other state in America. To give an idea of its significance, California holds more prisoner today than the whole United States of America- Federal and State- did in the 1960's.

* “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --quote of Hermann Goering [Göring],-the number two man in the Third Reich

* * those with contracts to provide U.S. prisons with consumable supplies, bedding, monitoring equipment etc. And special interest groups like California's largest and most successful union (The CCPOA: California

Part 8--Kids stop violence as beds are built to house them in prisons in adulthood

   Prison State

Is it the great wisdom of our government, averting future catastrophe, that has pushed the prison population’s growth beyond country and world record numbers? No. It is not wise to be ignoring rehabilitative, restitution-oriented, and educational, programs while building incredibly costly prisons in record numbers.  Were these brick and mortar human cages really the greatest cause of the reduction in violent crime? No. Did our society need to prepare for the criminals of tomorrow? No.  Researchers have exposed the falsehood in all of those rationalizations. And even outside of research, the signs are everywhere.

 Today's’ trend-setting youth have not yet been subjected to the direct effects of our growing prison population, yet the violent crime in public schools has dropped faster than it has in the streets. Public School violence has dropped by half between 1992 and 2002, and the trend continues.⑥

So why are we spending so much money on so many prisons? Millions of Americans are trapped in concrete. Why are so many of those peace promoting x-seniors of the 2000's so much more likely now to go to prison and stay there longer, than those twice as violent seniors of the early 1990's? Our politicians have been closing down the schools the seniors were bringing peace to, basically in order to make sure that once they graduate we have room to house them in our prisons. We have had to close schools and brown out fire stations while roughly $10,000,000,000.00 (that's 10x100million a year for a state of under 37,000,000)⑩ of tax-payer money was taken to largely pay prison-guard salary.  Far from saving us, these sentencing disparities and the concomitant prison growth are depleting finances and destroying the familial structures of many. Families forced to interact with this heartless system are depleted of their social capital.

.  Well, with all the (mostly dark-skinned) people we now have locked up in our prisons, we have had to have reduced crime, at least in the short term. It had to have saved some innocent lives. Though, likely not as many innocent lives as if we had let all of them go but instead imprisoned all the potential drunk drivers! DUI deaths, per year, are significantly higher than the number of people murdered by someone they have had no relation to. Since it is Californians losing on average roughly $1078.95 every 3 years* to pay the CDC, you would think that that state would be the first to act. It loses so much, in fact, that it forces the state to cut funding in ways which then produce a condition in which fewer criminals are caught. More criminals are kept unmonitored just so they can pay the inflated costs for a harsher revenge of the fewer convicted. When it comes to avenging, or even better saving, those innocent lives, the system should be aiming to get us the best bang for your buck? Charging California almost double the national average to house what has been at times the largest inmate population in the country, equates to the single largest bill to taxpayers in that state.  California's CDCR charges almost $50,000 per year ($49,171for males, and $51,405for females. ④ Even with the National average inflated by the roughly $50,000cost per inmate that the largest prison population in America requires, it still is only $28,000 per year.*** Follow the money, the system is a theft scheme at best, with prejudiced roots.

*Take California’s population (36,961,664) then remove the children (25.5%) and even without including the temporarily and chronically unemployed, those imprisoned, or on disability(no longer helping pay taxes) and per person the (9,970,008,758.00) annual prison cost is $359.65 which means, even if the costs no longer rose (not likely) you’ll give up $3,600 every 10 years.

**CCPOA is the Correction Officers Union. CCPOA is an acronym for “California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

***As a remedy we could immediately demand our legislators to hold a special election to outlaw the **CCPOA (along with the police and teachers unions: The terminator may have been on to something). So California stops being forced to pay the CDCR, 

Part 7 "Promoting STD's" #2

Humans tend to judge those who seem to hold similar beliefs as them in a more favorable light. Meaning, behaviors they would condemn in others, they give the benefit of the doubt towards those they more easily identify with. Our justice system has not been immune to this dynamic. Though not reflected by our laws, when judged objectively, things like DUI's and spreading an STD are far more horrid than are most traditional crimes in modern America.

Picture this, imagine that you and everyone you've ever been friends with never drank alcohol, had promiscuous sex nor an STD. Once you've imagined this, I mean really stopped reading and pictured this as your reality, then think about that race of reckless people who do drive drunk, and manipulate their way into frequent sexual encounters, wouldn't you want to just give them the death penalty regardless? Now, imagine that combined they kill more than 37,000 American, including innocent children, each and every year. Which is drastically more than any other two crimes combined. Carjackers kill less than 15 people a year. Do those that are murdering 37,000 Americans each year still deserve no prosecution or prison? All the Muslims in the world haven't killed half that number of Americans in the past (10) ten years, combined!

As for the future of America, is it Justice that labels inner-city kids "street terrorists" when all gang-related killings don't even equate to 1,000 people?

But don't stop there, no other violent crime in America, according to the most recent statistics, kills that many people yearly.

But, DUI's do! In 2004, they were responsible for 16,694 murders in America. Oh, what, they weren't "murders" because they didn't intend to kill anyone? On the face I could agree with that, but...

Do you think that most carjackers and robbers intended to kill anyone when they woke up that day? Like the inner-city robber that the 10-20-Life Law gives two strikes and 22 years minimum to for shooting a bullet (anywhere but at a person) into the ground? Well, the law treats it as an accident that he shot it into the ground instead of at a person. where for drunk driving has also been treated as an accident even when the drunk driver kills an innocent family, in this case, people have gotten (6) six years in prison.

Shoot a bullet into the ground and steal a wallet, get a minimum of 22 years in prison; remove the existence of a whole family (except the grandparents) and you can still get out while you're in your 20's. I'm sorry, but if that's the pinnacle of justice in the "free" world, I would hate to see its valley.*

Certain STD's promote the likelihood you will further contract an even more serious or deadly STD. But we will never see (10) ten-year enhancements on them.

Uninhibited group sex and sexual gang-bangs have been rightfully deemed very risky behaviors. And - as crazy as it sounds — per capita active participants of this form of gang-banging and the like, can very well be responsible for far more death (past, present, and future) than all the Bloods, Crips, Hispanic, Asian, and White gangs combined. But the Bloods and Crips usually just shoot rob and kill each other.

Gang members, in general, are usually pretty easy to spot. Whereas porn stars, swingers, those who've participated in drunken orgies or just have a lot of promiscuous sex, usually look just like -or often better than- the average American. Making them all the more dangerous.

Not only that but if a Crip goes and robs you, it usually doesn't mean you will become a Crip. However, like vampires, mix some bodily fluids with someone who has herpes and/or syphilis during a one night stand, chances are you have become a threat to everyone you, and they, enjoy (or would believe they would enjoy) becoming intimate with.

STD's don't need a license to drive, passports to travel, keys to enter, or age limits to avoid. No single crime in America kills even 1/10th of what either DUI's or STD's kill.

And without effective and responsible treatment (not to mention expensive) on a case by case basis, can spread exponentially, victimizing innocent humans for centuries.

While "studio gang banger" rappers, like "The Game" may promote criminal activity; Jenna Jameson walks the walk. What's a more dangerous picture than unprotected group anal sex? Well, she'll do it, on video, and I can all but guarantee some of our own lawmakers and public officials have put money in her pocket by buying these same videos.

Everyone knows condoms can be compromised. And yet, many people are capable of, in the right circumstances, and have engaged in knowingly placing an innocent human being (whether their spouse of new sex partner) in jeopardy of a death sentence, solely so they, in pure greed, can comfortably get their rocks off. Is this not one of the evilest of criminal acts?

I say this because sex usually requires a perceived shared feeling of trust, and at the least is a very close and intimate act. 
The following is a  very possible but hypothetical story: A very competitive and distinguished senior at a prestigious university finds out he has HPV but shows no continuing symptoms. He naturally only confides this to his best friend back home. A few

months go by and he ends up having sex with an extremely beautiful freshman. The kind of girl you'd be crazy to say "no" to. Well, about the 3rd or 4th time of them having sex through the night, the condom breaks. He graduates and goes on to help write the 3 strikes law, which sends people to prison for life, who have never hurt another person ever in their whole lives.

Around the same time, the law is taking a noticeable effect, a beautiful woman who is now a senior at her prestigious university dies of cervical cancer as a result of an HPV virus she had somehow caught when she was an 18-year-old freshman.

*Unfortunately ironic is the fact that often the same people yelling "freedom isn't free" are the ones supporting policies ensuring "Justice isn't Just". Though unbeknownst to most, these sorts of media parrots are the perfect soldiers in a battle against themselves as they fight against their freedom, and even their children's, while unwittingly supporting the wishes of the Corporatocracy--but, I digress, that is another subject.

Part 6-- "Promoting STD's" #1

But of course, they can't imprison all potential drunk drivers. They could send those already found guilty to prison, though.

Well, if it's only saving lives they think about when they create harsh sentencing laws, maybe they should focus on the biggest of the big dogs first. Such as people with STD's or, even those acting in a manner which may spread or promote the spreading of STD's. I suggest this because more Americans die each year from sexually transmitted diseases

(on average 22,000) than by all categories of murder combined. In fact, those people who are so afraid to be murdered by a random criminal during the commission of a felony, write laws making it legal to throw non-violent people away for (15) fifteen years (someone who has never hurt anybody, and committed his or her first crime ever). Laws that can also end up throwing these people away for life. Let me inform these logical people: If you count the nation's murderous robberies (731), burglaries (61), car theft and carjackings (11), and rapes (15) committed, where the police believe the victim and offender had no discernible prior relationship, you are roughly 27 times more likely to die from someone who gave you a deadly STD than from any of the above mentioned felonies. (27) Twenty-seven times the raw number 22,000 — is pretty significant, especially since many of the perpetrators could be tracked, investigated, and then prosecuted. Both as examples and also for public safety.

The major difference between the, on average, 22,000 dying each year from STD's and say the (11) eleven dying annually from carjacking, besides the huge difference in numbers, is that relatively very few affluent or influential (white) families will be affected by the mandatory 10- or 15-year sentence for carjacking. Whereas consensually engaging in an activity that may give another an STD, is something partaken of by even affluent kids and university students.

So, regardless of the tens of thousands dying each year, these same lawmakers see no need for rigorous prosecution for the passing along of deadly STDs. Since, like their own children, many of them are capable of transmitting an STD. Their minds are simply unable to demonize it. It's acceptable to them, even as thousands of young, wonderful, university women contracted and died from cervical cancer (caused by an STD).

And actually, because this affluent white sexual indulgence won't stop, minorities also will continue to receive a pass from prosecution.

Why is not all sex illegal for people who possess these historically murderous beings inside their bodies? Why not, like gang members, label the infected that have even protected sex with the healthy, `street terrorists' and given (10) ten-year and up sentences, regardless of the circumstances? Even as they kill thousands and bring worry and concern into our intimate lives. We could even, with near perfection, adapt the existing 10-20-life law for people with STD's. The firearm can be replaced with the sex organs. (10) Ten years if you display it in

a sexual manner, (20) twenty years if you use it sexually in front of someone, and 25 to life if you engage in any sort of sexual intercourse with them. And, of course, if they died, accident or not, protected or not, you'd be charged with their murder and subsequently face the death penalty.

When a cop kills someone who is committing a criminal act, it's the criminal's partner in the said crime that gets the murder charge. In this case, the STD could take the place of the murderous police officer. They both were acting carelessly because just as the healthy caught it they could then spread it, and also were promoting such wanton and reckless behavior by aiding its execution.

The intent, or outcome, is rarely considered when it comes to (3) three strikes and the gang and gun enhancements unless of course it could be used against the criminal.

Should then intent or outcome even matter when judging someone sexually promiscuous who has an STD?

Considering the potentially extreme danger it can subject countless lives for countless years, how is there no prisons for these mad biological terrorists? Why don't the police investigate each new documented case of a recently contracted sexually transmitted disease in order to make sure no crime took place? To facilitate the process, why aren't documented cases of STD's registered (either publicly or solely for police investigation)? Why aren't the sworn protectors of our society considering all those who are dying?

Well, the “Why?” is simple: Just as DUI's have historically been,

sex is something experienced by the majority of Americans.

And even the rich and powerful ones have contracted STD's. How, in any way, could they demonize themselves?