Tag Archives: Media

Media, Monopoly and Marxism.

I had a discussion on Facebook today, with someone who disagreed with socialism, yet supported clearly socialist ideas and policies, as I find so often. A reply by someone to the original Facebook post stated fascism and socialism were wrong, as well as all monopolies (as monopolies were assumed to be fascist in nature).

Below is my reply to posts regarding media near-monopolies, specifically how many newspapers, radio and TV stations were owned by just three corporations. I make no attempt to justify the actions or views of any media company in this blog post, but I did defend monopolies in general–in theory, as power can be corrupting (corrupting the Marxist and capitalist alike).

My concern is about the attitudes of those that we all rely upon to balance corporatism–the people. While most want to name an enemy within the people to attack, for reasons I will allude to in the post, I am more concerned with the change than I am with who is in power, as I see most oligarchies similarly.

My greatest criticism of people is how polarized between “us” and “them” we are, and how constructed, artificial and ego motivated those divisions are.

From FaceBook:

Fascism is certainly wrong we agree. (Where my reasoning differs is) I think “monopoly capitalism” is a socialist idea that is full of ‘social justice’ (need based theft).

To illustrate the small but distinct difference between the concepts of fascism and “monopoly capitalism”, I propose an example for comparison:

One person is rich and actively and purposely attempts to weaken or inhibit others–acts negatively to increase wealth, power or market share. (Regardless of the size of the business entity)

The other rich person (or not) works positively to create a great responsible product that meets the customers needs so well that all the scum-bag competitors go out of business–resulting in a monopoly.

The first is clearly more a threat to society and human rights, yet the second has the monopoly. The first is motivated by greed and fear, while the second motivated by love and joy. The first causes destruction and needless suffering. The second is an example for all business leaders.

The concept represented by the term “monopoly capitalism” is a construct of socialism that sees state ownership as righteous, and personal ownership as inherently unjust, regardless of the individuals’ actions that are judged.

The real, but often subconscious, purpose of socialist academia is to bias the language and debate to vilify and dehumanize the victims of socialism, so that the masses can more easily strip their wealth or power by force.

The fact that the individual victims’ wealth and the perceived “needs” of “the people” (the socialist oligarchs) are paramount in socialism, shows the true motive is not justice at all–but theft. Justice is in relation to actions being beneficial or not. Justice is not what I have that you need. That’s the same thinking of a fascist! The poor have it and the fascists want it, is the same as the rich have it and the socialists want it. What difference is it if I join fascists to steal from the poor, for my perceived “needs”, than if I join the poor to steal from the rich? Marxism is the flip side of the same ego coin as Corporatism. They are the problems–not the solutions.


Pursuing Paparazzi

I just got back from BC interior, where I was doing security for the cast of major motion picture being shot here in BC.  The air-tight confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow me to go into too much detail about some of my experiences, including four 9-1-1 calls, bears, knife wielding road-ragers, new scars on my hands, and my first up close dealings with paparazzi, but I feel once again compelled to question the actions of the media and police.

A righteous society creates laws in order to guarantee and increase freedom–not limit it.   For example, laws against murder may seem to limit our freedom to… murder …but in reality, the law gives us the freedom to live, and is consistent with the idea of upholding our highest laws, written into our constitution, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens is the right to walk down the street and be in any public place or any private place we are authorized to be in, as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, as set out in the Charter.

Paparazzi are scum.  They stalk people and attempt to harass and entrap people to sell useless gossip.  They don’t care about how many lives they destroy.  Remember how Princess Diana died–murdered by paparazzi who delighted in taking pictures of a grusome accident.  Remember how Michael Jackson was declared guilty by tabloid media, but declared not-guilty by a jury.

“Stalking” is a clear violation of our rights, and there are several sections of the criminal code that can be invoked to protect us all from harassment.  Certainly, following someone around for weeks using sophisticated monitoring (spying) equipment and secretly taking pictures of people’s hotel rooms with a telephoto lens is illegal.  If an ex-partner did these things you could have them arrested and given a restraining order, as your rights, including your explicit right to privacy would be violated by such actions.

Yet, when I reported these same illegal actions to the police, they told me that nothing could be done as there was no criminal intent… so… paparazzi “accidentally” followed us through three cities?  Sounds like a double standard for citizens and media.  Let’s look at the criminal code for reference, with my notes in parenthesis:



162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;
(Like taking pictures of a hotel room with a telephoto lens)
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Definition of “visual recording”
(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a peace officer who, under the authority of a warrant issued under section 487.01, is carrying out any activity referred to in those paragraphs.
(Media is not listed as having an exception)

Printing, publication, etc., of voyeuristic recordings
(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available.
(This section specifically makes it a crime for media to use such images)

(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4) (Observing, recording or publishing)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good.
(Taking photos of people for money is not in the public good and it certainly extends beyond any claim of public good.  This sub-section protects people who would expose politicians or public servants)

Question of law, motives
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6),
(a) it is a question of law whether an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good; and
(b) the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 162; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 4; 2005, c. 32, s. 6

Let’s recap:  It is a crime to take pictures of people in their homes or hotels, as they may be nude, no exception is given to media under the law and in fact an additional sub-section makes it a crime to publish any photos arising from such behavior, and the motives of the publisher is not a defence.  Yet I am told that paparazzi is immune because there “is no criminal intent”–not for a sexual purpose.  Ultimately, we will never know if this paparazzi guy masturbates to my photo, but we could assume he does–cause I’m hot.  The law against voyeurism was clearly broken and not enforced by the police.  So, according to the RCMP, it is legal to stalk anyone as long as you claim to be with the media.  Why?
Let’s examine the arguments of the paparazzi:

“They’re public figures” What is a public figure?  If your boss approaches you about being in the background of a commercial as an employee, do you lose your right to privacy as long as the commercial is on TV? forever?

It is the media who chooses who is or isn’t a public figure (media figure).  The only reason we have heard of the Octo-mom, is because the media chose to focus on her instead of just reporting that she had 8 kids and then moving on to a real news story.  If she had only three kids anyone who hung around her house taking pictures would be arrested as a stalker.

“I’m on public property” So what?  The laws and our Charter Rights still apply.

As a legitimate blogger (media) who has previously reported on media issues, I am going to do a story on the next police officer that refuses to enforce the law.  I will stay outside their house and follow them and the people they associate with, around the city taking pictures and attempting to catch them doing something embarrassing or unlawful.  Somehow, I think that they will become far more eager to enforce the law… all I ask is that they enforce it impartially and protect the privacy of all.  Perhaps I will do another story on the paparazzo and see if he likes how he treats others.

To strengthen privacy laws and anti-stalking measures:

  • Prohibit recording and monitoring of private property without the consent of the owners and visitors.
  • Limit the number of pictures that a person can take of any person in a public place without their consent.  Limit the length of time one can record a person without their consent.
  • Prohibit all secret recordings.  People taking pictures should have to declare themselves and their real intentions, and show identification.
  • Give each persons image and persona the same protection of copyright law or trademark law–you own your image and no one should be able to make money off of you without your consent–especially since paparazzi often tries to ruin a persons reputation with their “coverage”.
  • Prohibit fake news.  News is an event that has relevance to the public.  Britney’s new haircut isn’t news and it shouldn’t be presented as news.

The media is not in business to inform us, or for the public good.  The media has no obligation to tell the truth or be fair.  It is up to us to hold them accountable and protect our rights.

Why Am I Still Single?

Here is a great post by dating editor Kristine Gasbarre for YourTango.com

I think it is right on the money


Michael Jackson Murdered

Michael Jackson, who requires no introduction, is dead at age 50.  The cause of death has not been officially released, but my gut is telling me that such a skinny guy didn’t have a heart attack from too many cheezeburgers…

Suicide, overdose, and stress are all evidence of murder by media.  Two unsubstantiated allegations where every complaintant and witness wanted and/or recieved a substantial financial reward, was all the media needed to make millions destroying his life.  Shame on them–every reporter, news anchor, editor, shareholder, and photographer that ever made a dime off of reporting the guilt of a man that was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers–of which there are none.

The attack on Michael Jackson was so severe, he lost nearly everything he had.  It became politically incorrect to support a “child molester” that had been convicted in the media, and his massive music empire was destroyed overnight while the media got rich.  I always knew that people who would never admit to being a fan would only be able to openly recongnize his greatness in death.

His story was truly epic.  The legend of Michael Jackson began as a rags to riches story, morphed into a coming-of-age crowning of a king, who was villified by the greatest villians in our world today.  But in the end, the story of Michael Jackson will be known as a tragedy.

How can we say that we live in a free society when the media can get away with open character assassination and murder?

What’s Wrong With Politics? Part 5: Mass (Media) Ignorance

At no time in history has so much knowledge been so accessible to the people. The internet is a prime example with access the wikipedia, blogs and the Gutenberg Library which allows the user to download 27,000 classic public domain books–for free.

Ignorance is the source of contradictions and our society has plenty of both. We can harness the power of the sun in a thermal-nuclear bomb but many still believe we cannot possibly be effecting the climate of the earth. With all our knowledge, we think happiness is measured by our wealth, food comes from stores, and meat from packages. We think our G_d is not their G_d. I wonder if many people think at all.

The systems we have set up to inform, guide and teach have been corrupted by the zeitgeist–the spirit of the dime. Money is our means and end. Material wealth is what is now worshiped. It is the sum of our knowledge.

Our education system no longer teaches us to understand our place in the world. It teaches us how to make money. Our media does not inform us of what we need to know. Media informs us of what we “need”. Our parents are too busy making money to buy us the material life they never had–nor needed.

I find it curious that the news is on at the very time when most family’s are reunited after their workday. Instead of communicating with each other, they sit and numb their minds with tales of vicious sex crimes on the other side of the world, and somehow we feel disconnected from one another. And the void only grows larger during the commercial break.

If media portrays itself as truthful, then they have a duty to do more than sell advertising while entertaining us. With so much of our culture in their hands, we must ensure that those hands are clean and free from undue influence of groups with a vested interest in our ignorance. The egoism of corporations cannot be allowed to become the dominant value system of our culture and generation.

The media has the mentality of an abuser and we have the mentality of the abused. We know that mass media is not accurate, truthful or beneficial. We know that politicians are liars. We know corporations will steal, murder and rape our earth yet we continue to turn back to them for what we think need. It is time to break the cycle of dependence to willful ignorance for our mental health. It is time to take back our world. On Monday, I’ll tell you how.

Part 1: The Insanity of Our Society
Part 2: Egoism and Egotism
Part 3: The Erosion of Democracy
Part 4: The Devil is a Partisan
Part 5: Mass (Media) Ignorance
Part 6: A “True” Solution

“Get Your Senate Seats Here! Single Seat, Will Trade!”

I love the news that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested for trying to scalp a Senate appointment. This prime example of “pay to play” politics outlines how undemocratic our electoral systems are, regardless of any limits on campaign contributions. I hope that people can see that this type of bullshit, including the attempt to “induce purge of newspaper editorial writers,” is the rule–and not the exception.

Who Killed Canada?

The most important video you haven’t seen..


Dan Mick