Monday, January 5, 2015

2015 Proclamations

I was going to make New Year's resolutions but then I thought, hey, lets pretend Oggy is King and His Royal Oggy-ness gets to enforce resolutions for everyone. So, these are King Oggy's proclamations for 2015.

I) Rape- The whole "innocent until proven guilty" mandate looks nice on paper and it sounds good when you say it with a smug affectation, but, sorry, it's a fucked up approach to justice. The biggest problem is that it does no more to protect innocents accused of crimes that any approach does. Blind vigilantism in 1670 probably proportionally punished as many innocent people as today's justice system. Why? Because prosecutors, cops, District Attorneys, judges, defense attorneys, and juries are all still fallible assholes. Maybe if James Madison is cloned and everyone in the justice department is exactly like him then it will work. Today, it's a shitty doctrine of idealistic fantabulism and the first place I will require to be changed is concerning the crime of rape. 

Rape is a crime that completely exploits this "victim bears burden of proof" bullshit. It's total bullshit. Do you see? This is not effective, fair, correct, moral, logical, rational or sensible. It's absolutely puts a burden of proof on the person who was raped, which is a blatantly ignorant policy. SHE SAID SHE WAS RAPED. WHAT OTHER PROOF IS SHE GOING TO PROVIDE? Either we unhesitatingly accept a rape accusation as truth or we continue with our defacto suspicion of everything a rape victim has to say, like she's reporting a Bigfoot sighting, which is an indefensible and disgusting protocol. Totally repulsive and laughably called Due Process. Bullshit!~ This is the least complicated crime in existence and our blundering judicial process has made it completely convoluted. I'd love to punch a defense attorney in the face when they ask if "the victim implied consent". None of that matters, asshole. If she decides she was raped then that's all the proof we need. This is simple. Only a total scumbag would try to implicate the rape victim as complicit after the fact and in direct contradiction of her current statements. If you went to law school and can still try to help a rapist weasel out of an accusation then we have to seriously reconsider what we're teaching lawyers. Did these motherfucking attorneys attend the Ted Bundy School of Law?  If she knows or can identify who raped her then that's the end of the case. No trial. The guy goes to jail for 100 years. Done. Any other approach manufactures and empowers rapists. The only defense to a rape charge should be, "I WAS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND CAN PROVE IT!"

Future societies will look back in horror on our bumbling efforts to force rape victims to decide if they want to roll the dice in court to get a conviction against someone who might spend a few months in jail for a plea bargain, but will probably get away with it because defense attorneys have figured out how to defend rape charges. The grotesquely idealized system is in favor of the accused rapist. 33% of rapes in Guatemala are "resolved". I guess the other 67% are sticking their dicks in every hole in the wall. What's the conviction rate in the United States? You probably don't know because you're an ignorant piece of shit who obediently gobbles down this pathetic Due Process disaster. Here's a hint: It's a failure and it's easy to fix.

Oggy's Proclamation: A woman's accusation of sexual assault shall henceforth be a guilty sentence on the accused. The burden of proving innocence shall rest on the accused. Innocence shall only be decided if the accused is completely innocent, not a party to the event at all, was in another state at the time of the rape, etc, and he can prove it beyond a doubt. Any connection to the event will confirm the guilty sentence.

This is easy to justify because I'm of the current opinion that if you fuck around with a girl who is so unbalanced that she's going to wrongly accuse you of rape just for her own amusement, THEN YOU STILL FUCKED UP. You failed to read the signs of mental instability and you rolled the dice to get your dick wet and you lost and now you get 100 years in jail for your mistake. Boo hoo. We'll miss you. But this is such a rare scenario that it's much safer to accept that a woman who points to a man and says "That guy raped me." is telling the whole truth and we need to remove that person from society, forever and without regret. Either way, if a man can't prove he was completely innocent of the rape then lock him up or kill him. Our current approach is only justified by the historically male power structure who don't want to be held accountable for their cocks. You might suggest that such a proclamation means rapists will now have to murder their victims in order to avoid being identified and my response is, No, it means accused rapists will no longer have any protection under the law. Because they are scum, Due Process will no longer apply to them. Technically, he will have Due Process but that Process will be limited to his needing to be accused before being automatically found guilty. See? Oggy isn't insane. Since an accusation is equivalent to guilt the accused will not be provided a lawyer and any lawyer who represents a rapist whose guilt is confirmed will share the sentence, and the prison cell, of the guilty. An accused rapist may be executed by anyone without consequence. How they choose to act is their responsibility, but our response should be unequivocal.

Will innocent men go to jail? Yes, the same number of innocent men who currently go to jail with this pathetic 'Due Process' bullshit, but a shit ton more guilty motherfuckers will rot in a cell and that's Oggy's main objective for a few reasons. Mainly a rapist who covertly stalks strangers today usually has already sexually assaulted a girlfriend in the past, and she didn't report it because of this atrocious judicial procedure that amplifies the trauma often without result. By empowering women to immediately retain power in those early situations, by handing them the fate of their attacker, we take steps to eliminate the more complicated stalking situations by not giving rapists two chances. "Innocent until proven guilty" is pure horseshit in this case. End it now.*

* This is the first case in history when I wrote a proclamation and within 20 days Britain implemented almost an identical proclamation. I'm flabbergasted, but there's no way they read my post and decided to agree. I wonder why?

85,000 Rapes
15,670 Reports
2900 trials
1070 convictions.

Sounds like their previous system was working perfectly and they should continue treating women who report rape the same way as people who report sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

And I had no previous knowledge of their new judicial proceedings for rape cases. I actually proclaimed something and it was immediately responded to by a whole country. Does this make me King of England?

II) Drugs - Newsflash: The war on drugs was not a war on drugs. The "war" was on Anti-Vietnam Destruction demonstrators and ethnic minorities, poor people, and competition to tobacco. Thus, it was never a realm a Democracy should've been involved with. By comparison, the 1919 Prohibition was honestly an attempt to mitigate alcohol related problems. The temperance movement sincerely felt the country would be better off sober. Hahaha! There was no political or economic benefit to outlawing booze production. You think Ginger Ale manufacturers were all sober nuns lobbying for Prohibition to get rich? The years between 1919 and 1933 proved the temperance advocates believed so strongly in their opinion that they were willing to combat a much more destructive force in organized crime rather than surrender efforts to enforce sobriety. Unfortunately the Department of Investigation, which was a harmless arm of the Department of Justice, came of age at the exact same time as Organized Crime so the nightmarishly large rogue mercenary group we now know as the FBI is basically the result of a bunch of busy bodies in 1918 trying to get their husbands and neighbors to stop drinking whiskey.

Sadly, a few years after Prohibition ended, the attack on Marijuana had begun as part of big Tobacco's campaign to exterminate competition and marginalize/criminalize users. The closet homosexual, cross-dressing, control freak J. Edgar Hoover led the attack on a widespread and harmless habit that was determined to be fringe and undesirable with no scientific evidence to back it up. It was almost like Hoover needed a vague enemy to justify his seizure of power so he chose bebop jazz musicians. It was a perfect storm of events that would lead to 80 years of a state-manufactured crime wave from which only prison contractors profited. Opium, for instance, was the drug of choice for Chinese railroad workers, and by making Opium illegal the Chinks could be controlled and Hoover could appear to be 'cracking down on crime'. Pretty smart, but ultimately it's bullshit and America bought The Big Lie. The prohibition on Opium, pot, cocaine, crack, meth are all merely excuses to control the population. Big Brother learned from the first prohibition that such a policy allowed/authorized incredible human rights abuses. The war on drugs is a ruse to grow government authority, and it worked. 

Only Alcohol, the worst drug of all, is legal simply because people refused to embrace sobriety. It's so disingenuous for a piece of shit career politician to puff his chest out and talk about drug use as a crime. Conservative President Reagan and his wife dreamed up the ultimate slap in the face to Conservative ideology with their laughable "Just Say No" campaign. Their idea of education was, "Do what we say." and it was a failure, but Reagan got reelected and his wealth grew, despite being completely caught red handed smuggling cocaine into the U.S. to scratch the backs of murderous death squads in Nicaragua. What a piece of shit! Bush Sr. followed Reagan with his, "We'll build more prisons" mandate: Another failure except his wealth and power grew. Then Clinton showed up and was a admitted pot head but he still profited politically from the faux war while Mexico's cartels expanded and strengthened under Clinton's watch he was getting blowjobs. Awesome! Then we had a President W,  who was raised a few counties from the Mexican border and even he went along with the disastrous war on drugs because his handler Karl Rove realized it was a confirmed tool for reelection. One politician after another looked at the war on drugs and thought, "How can I profit politically and financially from this?" And voters bought the lies because their Puritan instincts recoiled at the thought of potent street drugs. I don't blame them, but the drug war never addressed the drugs. It was just a paper promise that sounded good in speeches.

Private drug use is not a Federal domain and meddling in it became a sort of ancillary bonus for politicians as the "war on drugs" was really a code for "futile expenditures that can be disguised as positive". If any single topic defines the corruption now embedded in Federal Government it is the war on drugs because it's clearly futile but it's a default topic the politician can chew on like cows in the pasture to give the impression he's moment away from some grand gesture. Every campaign includes this topic but states are the only ones who should be deciding how to tax and monitor the quality of the drugs. Again, private drug use is not a realm of existence the Federal Branch can or should control. Their interests are purely for ancillary profit and to use the drug topic as a masquerade/substitute for action. It's a like standing on a broken treadmill and calling it exercise. Mexico has enough problems without the cartels trying to exploit the criminal trade of drugs.

Oggy's Proclamation: If you don't like drugs then you will not be required to use them. Otherwise, the Federal Government has no opinion on their use. You can piss on your pant leg, pay someone to sit on your face, and you can smoke crack until you see Baby Jesus in the clouds. The burden of education and prevention is completely on parents, neighbors, teachers, and individual drug users. If they can not manage their affairs on this topic then we're fucked and the Federal Government has no business existing anyway.

The problem with this is the socialized Big Brother culture that was created for legitimate reasons by Roosevelt during the dust bowl Depression now has everyone dependent on hand outs either as business subsidies and tax breaks or welfare. Because so many people are dependent on Uncle Sam for food, they will be incidentally dependent for drugs too. That's tough but the alternative doesn't work so socialism is required in a corrupt capitalism and people will abuse the system, selling food stamps for money to buy crack, etc. Oh well. Of primary concern is addressing drug use that is an actual problem, not condemning drug use en masse from some kind of contradictory platform of moral puritanism. Drug abuse is a problem that can be addressed, but the existence and availability of drugs is not controllable in a country as large as The United States. Or I should say that it's only controllable once Due Process is suspended for drug offenses, like my first proclamation suspends Due Process for rape. Suspicion and accusation must equal a guilty sentence. Then eradicating drugs is feasible. Thailand and Laos don't hesitate to hang drug offenders...and drugs are still readily available because due process still exists. America is unwilling, or deliberately resistant to, doing what is required to eradicate drugs and since there is no deterrent factor where drugs are concerned we should give it up. I am a merciful king so I will not attempt this method of drug eradication. I decree, "Let them smoke hash!" Drug rehabs will be private because government run institutions don't work. I swear that the current criminalization of drug abusers will eventually be seen as the equivalent to electro-shock treatment for the depressed and lobotomies for diabetics with low blood sugar. The Federal Government has become addicted to managing state and family affairs, mainly because it is lucrative job security, and that addiction is ruining the world and making a mockery of Government.

3) War - Speaking of ruining the world, we have all been straddling the line between war and peace for too long. America must choose to either drop the Big Bomb repeatedly on our enemies, or else mothball the entire Defense Department until an actual domestic threat exists. I realize there is more money to be made in long and complicated grinding ground wars, but contractors like Halliburton and KBR are going to have to tighten their belt. The gravy train must end. In a convoy of ten trucks, 6 of them have to be devoted to fuel for themselves and the other 4. That only makes sense if you are the one writing the bill for fuel. In my oil field job I was expected to drive 3 hours to a job site and 3 hours back. I said I was getting a hotel room 30 minutes from the job site. The boss said I had to pay for the hotel. I said fine, even though it meant I'd be working to pay my hotel bill in order to work to pay my hotel bill. The boss then said I was cheating the company out of 6 hours of billable time at $95 an hour so I could either drive or find another job. That's when I realized I wasn't costing the company money by driving or saving them money by moving closer to the job; I was making money for them simply by driving in circles. If it meant wasting 20 gallons of gas and 6 hours of my time to make them $600 then that's what it meant. That's the mindset of Halliburton and KBR, except the people paying the frivolous bills are not Shell or ExxonMobil or Chesapeake Energy, but taxed Americans. Right now people are driving in circles in some fucking desert strictly in order to bill those hours and those resources to the Defense Department, and they are thinking, 'If this war lasts just a few months more then I can afford that house near Lake Tahoe'. It's a cash cow and that's all it is. I'm sure there are a few idealists who think these desert wars are about "freedom" but I know they are more about billable hours.

So, I was dangerously close to proclaiming absolute war on Palestine, Russia, China and North Korea. By absolute war I mean many atomic bombs dropped on civilian populations. War does solve problems, contrary to what hippies say when they are stoned, but it has to be a war not to make money for private defense contractors, but a war to actually crush an opponent. That's the big difference. We've got to take a lesson from Apocalypse Now. I want to support an effort to annihilate any opposition to U.S. domination. I'm King, remember, and I want really cheap fruit cocktails served by Guatemalan slaves in the scrimshaw carved skulls of North Korean children! But~! There is no War proclamation because then I remembered that all of that is irrelevant because of...#4.

4) Climate Apocalypse - See, it makes no difference who dominates Earth when that 4C degree of temperature change ticks up then all inhabitants are fucked properly. So, a nuclear war can wait until we have ceased our war on the atmosphere. The evidence suggests it's already too late, that 4C degrees increase is guaranteed and we'll be lucky to avoid 8C degrees increase. But let's pretend for a moment that it's possible to change our destiny. How is that going to happen? Well, considering the current infrastructure depends on fossil fuels and building a sustainable infrastructure also depends on fossil fuels, the addict's paradox becomes apparent: "I need a good fix, in order to kick the habit." This is the twisted language of a junkie and Oggy wants no part of it. We got ourselves in this mess and the casualties of a cold turkey carbon cessation will be enormous. So let's use the last remaining gasoline to dig huge pits to throw the bodies. It's not a popular topic, but there is no way the status quo is going to change without unprecedented unrest, probably some revolutions. So, war is in the future no matter what direction we choose. Either continued climate decay will cause environmental refugees to stress neighboring countries until war breaks out, or countries will attempt to legislate our survival and that will stress the impoverished into revolution. I don't see Texans peacefully agreeing to any stoppage of oil production. It's unavoidable and as King Oggy I say, "Get Ready." because refineries are henceforth closed.

Proclamation: Dust off that old bicycle. Henceforth all fossil fuels will be banned.

I justify this because the science backs it up. If you are in a car with 100 miles worth of gas in the tank and you have 200 miles to the next gas station there are two ways to view the situation: the Republican view is that there is not enough evidence to force you to stop, since you are actually still moving. Maybe the gas gauge is wrong. So why not keep driving? The Democrats view is that we should keep driving but keep our eyes peeled for the next gas station because maybe one has been built that isn't on the map. Both are blind idiots. You stop the car because obviously if you can't keep the tank full they you are an asshole who has no business behind the wheel. This proclamation is related to the one on rape because the current economic model is that everything is permitted until it is proven that it's bad for the environment....everything, like asbestos, lead paint, smoking, is innocent until proven guilty. Bullshit! I want to flip that around so that nothing is permitted until it's proven that it does no harm to the environment. Crazy, right? But I'm King so shut your pie hole and do as I command.

All Hail The King!
Creative Commons License
Man in the Van by Oggy Bleacher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.