The animal is he,
so civil and clean;
And now down to the crux with him and me,
and unto with which way we went we speak,
of his kind and on the line he signed,
my multi-rhetoric term-entwined,
letter of agreement as so to speak with these words of mine;
Abide he see and he it will be,
that in the dawn of his final chapter era,
as I am so inclined to define,
he will belong to me at that moment in time;
So,
brace yourself Azie,
for the next time you find you,
within which of the way of my shadow's cast,
Know then that I am there to foreclose your contract...
Not less tax.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Old Work "The Here And Now" Mr. Polysyllabic 2002
Where you are supposed to be is,
Standing firmly with faces to the sky,
Sunset over your shoulder to the west.
Clouds macerating in swirls and hues of which your heart feels so content,
All adherence is in the warmth of the sharing of space.
Winds blow your aura past you,
In shapes for only such so wanted in the wishes within you to whisk away,
Apart from familiar reflection and at stance with inner frustration.
Where can we ever really live our lives?
Forbidden adaptation migrates then infiltrates for to alternate passive motives to aggressive moves within you as sky falls dark around your body and arms,
Spread about for to embrace a power brought from the land,
And happiness grown from tedious trials amongst a nation trite by habitual tribulation.
Feet and frame rooting from veins in your legs,
This assistance tends to abide with limits,
Toward insubordinate missions for distance.
Preclusion in view of aftermath’s forethought,
Reciprocates any lender’s lease, Void.
The you and whom of which were the words and text,
needn’t be left without toil or reflect,
Once wise wishes whisper within where willing ways wait,
There, from then to when you rest,
Nothing is ever not there.
It’s really me and I that’s said to the winds and skies,
Through eyes like your’s and mine,
Inside said trials of life,
Reeling we see,
All such sans face for seeds.
Planted and grown to be,
In spite of the ways of how contemptuous this cycle is,
Bound side by side and burdened to survive,
Amid this plain,
Baring no other trees.
Standing firmly with faces to the sky,
Sunset over your shoulder to the west.
Clouds macerating in swirls and hues of which your heart feels so content,
All adherence is in the warmth of the sharing of space.
Winds blow your aura past you,
In shapes for only such so wanted in the wishes within you to whisk away,
Apart from familiar reflection and at stance with inner frustration.
Where can we ever really live our lives?
Forbidden adaptation migrates then infiltrates for to alternate passive motives to aggressive moves within you as sky falls dark around your body and arms,
Spread about for to embrace a power brought from the land,
And happiness grown from tedious trials amongst a nation trite by habitual tribulation.
Feet and frame rooting from veins in your legs,
This assistance tends to abide with limits,
Toward insubordinate missions for distance.
Preclusion in view of aftermath’s forethought,
Reciprocates any lender’s lease, Void.
The you and whom of which were the words and text,
needn’t be left without toil or reflect,
Once wise wishes whisper within where willing ways wait,
There, from then to when you rest,
Nothing is ever not there.
It’s really me and I that’s said to the winds and skies,
Through eyes like your’s and mine,
Inside said trials of life,
Reeling we see,
All such sans face for seeds.
Planted and grown to be,
In spite of the ways of how contemptuous this cycle is,
Bound side by side and burdened to survive,
Amid this plain,
Baring no other trees.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
USA Never Stops Working Act of 2011 - PLEASE SIGN at WhiteHouse.gov
USA Never Stops Working Act of 2011; in brief...
Institute a 24 hour/7 day a week stock market. Make everyday a business day and mandate a 30 hour work week as full-time.A stock market that never closes has infinite potential in production margins. It will force publicly traded companies to hire more too. 3 fold more?
Mandating a 7 day business week rather than a 5 day business week will increase overall production potential by a marginal 40% as well as force typical 5 day businesses to hire more personnel.
Mandating a 30 hour work week will also enable more workers to be eligible for benefits or at least bolster their leverage in the collective bargaining of such.
Super rich corporations are refusing to invest in the USA, this will force them to do it.
USA Never Stops Working Act 2011!
Thank you for reading this. Good luck everyone.
Go to:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/usa-never-stops-working-act-2011/JNsPRvNn
5,000 signatures are need for an official response from the White House.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
This One Might Think
Th i s O n e M i g h t T h i n k B y Mr. Polysyllabic
A c t a w r y a l l o w i n g a i l m e n t s a l l a b o u t
a m i d a n d a r o u n d a l w a y s a l o f t ,
B e n d b r e a c h i n g b a t t l e s b e y o n d
b o u n d a r i e s b u i l t b e s t b y b o d y g u a r d s ,
C a s t c a l m c r e a t i o n s c a u s i n g c r o w d s
c r i n g i n g c o l l i d i n g c a u t i o u s l y c a l l u s e d ,
D i s s u a d e d o u b t d w i n d l i n g d i r e c t l y
d i v e r s e d o w n d e e p d e l i v e r e d d r i f t i n g ,
E n v y e n d l e s s e l a t e d e a r m a r k s e m b o d i e d
e l s e w h e r e e n d i n g e r r a n t e v e n e a r n i n g ,
F i g h t f e a r l e s s f o r e g o i n g f a i l u r e
f r o m f u t u r e f a s c i n a t i o n s f o r f e i t e d ,
G u i d e g u a r d e d g r o w i n g g r a n t e d g r o s s l y
g r o o m i n g g u i d e l i n e s g a s p i n g g u m p t i o n ,
H i d e h o l l o w e d h a p p i l y h i n t i n g h e n c e f o r t h
h o w h o l d i n g h e a v e n h a s h e l p e d h i m ,
I l l u s t r a t e i d e a l s i m a g i n e d i n i d i o m s
i n c o r p o r a t i n g i s l a n d s i n s i d e i m p e r f e c t i o n ,
J o i n j o u s t i n g j o y o u s j u s t j e e r i n g
j e t t i s o n s j u d g i n g j e a l o u s y ,
K i s s k e e p i n g k e e n k e y s k i d n a p p e d
k i l l i n g k i n g s k i n d l y ,
L e a p l u n g i n g l e n d i n g l e s s l o w e r
l a s t i n g l o n g e r l e t t i n g l i t t l e l i v e ,
M e n t i o n m o m e n t s m a r k e d m i n d f u l m a s t e r i n g
m i n u t e s m o s t l y m e a n i n g m e s s a g e s ,
N e g l e c t n o n s t o p n o t i o n s n e e d i n g n e a r l y
n o n u r t u r e n o r n o n s e n s e ,
O b l i g e o m i s s i o n s o n g o i n g o u t s i d e
o r d e r o d d l y o u s t e d o m i n o u s l y ,
P o s e p o i s e d p r e s e n t i n g p r e e m p t i o n s p o l a r
p a s t p e o p l e p o o r p l e n t y p i n n e d p i n e d ,
Q u i p q u i e t l y q u e s t i o n i n g
q u e s t s ,
R e a c t r e s i l i e n t r e c i p r o c a t i n g r e s o l v e s r o c k i n g
r e a d y r i g h t r e a r i n g r i g h t e o u s n e s s ,
S o u n d s e n t i m e n t a l s e n d i n g s i g h t
s o s o l i d s t i l l s o m e s a y s i l e n c e ,
T e l l t i m e l e s s t a l e s t r i g g e r i n g t e m p t a t i o n
t o w a r d t o m o r r o w t o d a y ,
U n l o c k u s e l e s s u r g e s u n d e r u g l y u t t e r a n c e s
u n d e r m i n i n g u p b r i n g i n g ,
V a r n i s h v a l u e s v e r y v e r t i c a l v a s t l y
v e n t i n g v e n t u r e s v i n d i c t i v e l y ,
W h i s t l e w a l k i n g w h i l e w i s h e s w h i s p e r s
w a i t i n g w i t h w i l l w h i l e w e w o n d e r ,
X e n o p h o b i c x e r o g r a p h y
x e r i c x y l e m ,
Y i e l d y o u r s e l f y a w n i n g y e t y o u n g
y e l l i n g y e s t e r d a y y o n d e r ,
Z e a l o u s l y z e s t z o o m i n g z e r o i n g
z o n e d z e n i t h .
E n v y
F e e l t h e e y e s
A c t a w r y a l l o w i n g a i l m e n t s a l l a b o u t
a m i d a n d a r o u n d a l w a y s a l o f t ,
B e n d b r e a c h i n g b a t t l e s b e y o n d
b o u n d a r i e s b u i l t b e s t b y b o d y g u a r d s ,
C a s t c a l m c r e a t i o n s c a u s i n g c r o w d s
c r i n g i n g c o l l i d i n g c a u t i o u s l y c a l l u s e d ,
D i s s u a d e d o u b t d w i n d l i n g d i r e c t l y
d i v e r s e d o w n d e e p d e l i v e r e d d r i f t i n g ,
E n v y e n d l e s s e l a t e d e a r m a r k s e m b o d i e d
e l s e w h e r e e n d i n g e r r a n t e v e n e a r n i n g ,
F i g h t f e a r l e s s f o r e g o i n g f a i l u r e
f r o m f u t u r e f a s c i n a t i o n s f o r f e i t e d ,
G u i d e g u a r d e d g r o w i n g g r a n t e d g r o s s l y
g r o o m i n g g u i d e l i n e s g a s p i n g g u m p t i o n ,
H i d e h o l l o w e d h a p p i l y h i n t i n g h e n c e f o r t h
h o w h o l d i n g h e a v e n h a s h e l p e d h i m ,
I l l u s t r a t e i d e a l s i m a g i n e d i n i d i o m s
i n c o r p o r a t i n g i s l a n d s i n s i d e i m p e r f e c t i o n ,
J o i n j o u s t i n g j o y o u s j u s t j e e r i n g
j e t t i s o n s j u d g i n g j e a l o u s y ,
K i s s k e e p i n g k e e n k e y s k i d n a p p e d
k i l l i n g k i n g s k i n d l y ,
L e a p l u n g i n g l e n d i n g l e s s l o w e r
l a s t i n g l o n g e r l e t t i n g l i t t l e l i v e ,
M e n t i o n m o m e n t s m a r k e d m i n d f u l m a s t e r i n g
m i n u t e s m o s t l y m e a n i n g m e s s a g e s ,
N e g l e c t n o n s t o p n o t i o n s n e e d i n g n e a r l y
n o n u r t u r e n o r n o n s e n s e ,
O b l i g e o m i s s i o n s o n g o i n g o u t s i d e
o r d e r o d d l y o u s t e d o m i n o u s l y ,
P o s e p o i s e d p r e s e n t i n g p r e e m p t i o n s p o l a r
p a s t p e o p l e p o o r p l e n t y p i n n e d p i n e d ,
Q u i p q u i e t l y q u e s t i o n i n g
q u e s t s ,
R e a c t r e s i l i e n t r e c i p r o c a t i n g r e s o l v e s r o c k i n g
r e a d y r i g h t r e a r i n g r i g h t e o u s n e s s ,
S o u n d s e n t i m e n t a l s e n d i n g s i g h t
s o s o l i d s t i l l s o m e s a y s i l e n c e ,
T e l l t i m e l e s s t a l e s t r i g g e r i n g t e m p t a t i o n
t o w a r d t o m o r r o w t o d a y ,
U n l o c k u s e l e s s u r g e s u n d e r u g l y u t t e r a n c e s
u n d e r m i n i n g u p b r i n g i n g ,
V a r n i s h v a l u e s v e r y v e r t i c a l v a s t l y
v e n t i n g v e n t u r e s v i n d i c t i v e l y ,
W h i s t l e w a l k i n g w h i l e w i s h e s w h i s p e r s
w a i t i n g w i t h w i l l w h i l e w e w o n d e r ,
X e n o p h o b i c x e r o g r a p h y
x e r i c x y l e m ,
Y i e l d y o u r s e l f y a w n i n g y e t y o u n g
y e l l i n g y e s t e r d a y y o n d e r ,
Z e a l o u s l y z e s t z o o m i n g z e r o i n g
z o n e d z e n i t h .
E n v y
F e e l t h e e y e s
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Ancestry and Classmates folly or your's?
eCommerce has been hoisted as the most influential economic phenomena known to man. When you think of this association, names like eBay or Amazon come to mind in a near ornate fashion. eCommerce has introduced some of the most creative means to garner revenue across the broad network of consumers offered by the world wide web. It saves a lot of time, a lot of money, and it enables some businesses to compete without much overhead cost at all. Although, there are a few bad apples in the bunch. Some internet sites benefit immensely from the unwitting efforts of users that are pilfered for the sake of profit.
Websites like Ancestry and Classmates rely entirely on a volunteer user database in order to profit. They reel you in with the idea that you may be reconnected with an old friend or that you may learn something you did not know about your family history. What they do not make clear to the user is, that as soon as you sign up and participate in their scheme, your information (email, name, location, and a slew of very personal information) becomes their product to sell to anyone willing to pay for it. Their privacy policies may include provisions restricting the transfer of a user's information to third-party marketers, but the entire premise of their business model relies on other users requesting your information and thus the other users pay a subscription fee in order to get your information. Albeit, this activity may never result in a negative experience for the user but at the same time, the user is never compensated for providing the information that is essential to these companies interests.
Is it truly legal for these entities to basically sell the personal information of its users, garnering revenues of nearly $400 million between the two in 2008? Is it a respectable practice to gather information about a non-user's family or ancestry in order to sell that information to anyone who pays for it? Because, even if you are not a member of the Ancestry website they blatantly advertise that your family history is there to be reviewed by anyone who pays for it. Even if you never subscribe to Classmates, merely signing up out of curiosity puts you into their database and then your information is used to entice others' to subscribe so that they may contact you.
These two websites are similar but also different. Classmates seemingly withdraws it's liability since the user volunteered the information. Ancestry simply uses public records or information provided by paid and non-paid users to compile a wealth of information that a non-user has no choice but to allow them to sell. Could that really be true?
Both sites use photographs as selling points. Classmates relies on the user to upload the photos, while Ancestry will obtain this graphic information any way it can (public record, google photos, yearbooks, news archives, etc).
It is astonishing how these companies have been able to benefit from the ill-thought decisions of it's users. In the wake of such media fervor over Facebook's use (or free trade) of personal information, why hasn't there been more talk about how Classmates and Ancestry make their millions. Perhaps it is all just the user's fault for not using elementary logic before typing in their personal information.
Mr. Polysyllabic
Websites like Ancestry and Classmates rely entirely on a volunteer user database in order to profit. They reel you in with the idea that you may be reconnected with an old friend or that you may learn something you did not know about your family history. What they do not make clear to the user is, that as soon as you sign up and participate in their scheme, your information (email, name, location, and a slew of very personal information) becomes their product to sell to anyone willing to pay for it. Their privacy policies may include provisions restricting the transfer of a user's information to third-party marketers, but the entire premise of their business model relies on other users requesting your information and thus the other users pay a subscription fee in order to get your information. Albeit, this activity may never result in a negative experience for the user but at the same time, the user is never compensated for providing the information that is essential to these companies interests.
Is it truly legal for these entities to basically sell the personal information of its users, garnering revenues of nearly $400 million between the two in 2008? Is it a respectable practice to gather information about a non-user's family or ancestry in order to sell that information to anyone who pays for it? Because, even if you are not a member of the Ancestry website they blatantly advertise that your family history is there to be reviewed by anyone who pays for it. Even if you never subscribe to Classmates, merely signing up out of curiosity puts you into their database and then your information is used to entice others' to subscribe so that they may contact you.
These two websites are similar but also different. Classmates seemingly withdraws it's liability since the user volunteered the information. Ancestry simply uses public records or information provided by paid and non-paid users to compile a wealth of information that a non-user has no choice but to allow them to sell. Could that really be true?
Both sites use photographs as selling points. Classmates relies on the user to upload the photos, while Ancestry will obtain this graphic information any way it can (public record, google photos, yearbooks, news archives, etc).
It is astonishing how these companies have been able to benefit from the ill-thought decisions of it's users. In the wake of such media fervor over Facebook's use (or free trade) of personal information, why hasn't there been more talk about how Classmates and Ancestry make their millions. Perhaps it is all just the user's fault for not using elementary logic before typing in their personal information.
Mr. Polysyllabic
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Shirley Sherrod debacle
On July 19, 2010 conservative blogger Andrew Brietbart posted an excerpt of a speech in which then US Dept of Agriculture Director of Rural Development for the State of Georgia, Shirley Sherrod detailed an incident where she admits that she used poor judgment in relation to providing Government services to a struggling white farmer in rural Georgia. The feud that followed has steadily grown into a nationwide debate concerning the social interests of organizations like the NAACP and the national Tea Party movement.
In an effort to minimize criticism regarding the events featured in the video excerpt, the NAACP has categorized the video release as "edited" when in fact the portion of the video Brietbart posted was not edited in any way, rather it was just a segment of a speech that was some 43 minutes in duration.
In the segmented video, viewers will see and hear a Government employee depict an incident where a struggling farmer had requested assistance from his Gov't in order to help his family and farm survive in an increasingly dismal agricultural market. The speech was given to an audience of NAACP members on March 27, 2010. Within this speech, Sherrod did not only describe how she discriminated the man based on the color of his skin, but as well, she accused the man of being racist towards her. These descriptions were met with snickers and laughter from the audience on several occasions. She admits that rather than refer this man to the best possible person to help him, she referred him to someone "of his own kind." She states that at the time, she figured that "one of them" would be the most appropriate to handle his case.
The rudimentary defense to Sherrod's statement was that her entire speech was highlighting her growth as a civil servant and person, that her perception at the time was an error and that the parameters of her job was not to assist people based on race but based on need. "Its not about black or white.." she says, but then she also says "it is about black and white." A very confusing statement from the point-of-view of someone hearing the statement. A statement that members of the audience showed favor to through laughter and praise.
It is true that, the excerpt cast the NAACP in a poor light. Many people who have reviewed the excerpt in conjunction with the entire speech have stated that the video clip was not entirely accurate in regard to the intention of her words. Sherrod was subsequently forced to resign her position with the USDA and also roundly criticized throughout the media and social circles.
Her response to the release of this video was not to apologize, she did not repudiate those in the audience for seemingly validating her previous behavior. She did not take much personal responsibility for her statements or how they were delivered, rather, she has resolved to shift the blame from herself and the NAACP to the man who brought this incident to light, Mr. Brietbart. Sherrod has taken significant effort to deny that what she said was wrong, or at least in poor judgment. She has painstakingly manipulated the entire incident into a civil litigation suit again the blogger, rather than just apologize or convey to those in attendance that her words and their response was wrong.
Brietbart claims that the intention of his post was not to demonize Sherrod or to provoke her superiors to dismiss her from her position. He asserts that he posted this excerpt in response to recent NAACP accusations toward the Tea Party movement, that the Tea Party is an organization that harbors racists and promotes a racist agenda. His goal was to level the field by pointing out the NAACP is just as culpable, if not more, than the Tea Party when it comes to endorsing racism. The video excerpt he posted appears to make that point very clear for everyone. To deny that those in attendance for Sherrod's presentation did not react to her stories in a manner that endorses racism is just foolhardy. To deny that her words were at the very least confusing is also an act of willful ignorance.
Sherrod's commitment to a lawsuit in response to this matter could stand to unravel the fabric of free-speech in this country. Her entire case relies on an opinion of personal injury arising from factual documentation of her statements. If she were to prevail in this case, what could that mean for the rest of us?
Here is a comparison, say you are out walking with a video camera in your hand, recording whatever you see. After a while you see a man approaching a dog in the middle of the street. You focus your lens upon the man in time to capture the man kicking the dog very hard. So hard that the dog is lifted into the air and hurled to the side of the street. You continue to record the incident as you also see a vehicle that had been speeding in the direction of the dog and that it was imminent that vehicle would collide with the canine had the man not intervened. Now, you go home and upload that video to your YouTube account or blog but you only post the portion of the video that shows the man kicking the dog and not that the man only did so to prevent the dog from being run over. Would it be okay for that man to sue you because you did not include the entire video? Is it just, that because your video cast that man in a negative light that he is now able to request judgment against you for not making him look good in your video?
This entire debacle really has spun out of control. Shirley Sherrod has been very stubborn about the incident, she refuses to take responsibility for her words but rather, she expects an observer to take the responsibility for her.
Here is one last question about this situation. Given the fact that Sherrod has admitted to behaving in a racist manner in the past, could it stand to reason that she would not have maintained her current stance had the man who posted the video been an African-American? Discuss.
-Mr. Polsysllabic
In an effort to minimize criticism regarding the events featured in the video excerpt, the NAACP has categorized the video release as "edited" when in fact the portion of the video Brietbart posted was not edited in any way, rather it was just a segment of a speech that was some 43 minutes in duration.
In the segmented video, viewers will see and hear a Government employee depict an incident where a struggling farmer had requested assistance from his Gov't in order to help his family and farm survive in an increasingly dismal agricultural market. The speech was given to an audience of NAACP members on March 27, 2010. Within this speech, Sherrod did not only describe how she discriminated the man based on the color of his skin, but as well, she accused the man of being racist towards her. These descriptions were met with snickers and laughter from the audience on several occasions. She admits that rather than refer this man to the best possible person to help him, she referred him to someone "of his own kind." She states that at the time, she figured that "one of them" would be the most appropriate to handle his case.
The rudimentary defense to Sherrod's statement was that her entire speech was highlighting her growth as a civil servant and person, that her perception at the time was an error and that the parameters of her job was not to assist people based on race but based on need. "Its not about black or white.." she says, but then she also says "it is about black and white." A very confusing statement from the point-of-view of someone hearing the statement. A statement that members of the audience showed favor to through laughter and praise.
It is true that, the excerpt cast the NAACP in a poor light. Many people who have reviewed the excerpt in conjunction with the entire speech have stated that the video clip was not entirely accurate in regard to the intention of her words. Sherrod was subsequently forced to resign her position with the USDA and also roundly criticized throughout the media and social circles.
Her response to the release of this video was not to apologize, she did not repudiate those in the audience for seemingly validating her previous behavior. She did not take much personal responsibility for her statements or how they were delivered, rather, she has resolved to shift the blame from herself and the NAACP to the man who brought this incident to light, Mr. Brietbart. Sherrod has taken significant effort to deny that what she said was wrong, or at least in poor judgment. She has painstakingly manipulated the entire incident into a civil litigation suit again the blogger, rather than just apologize or convey to those in attendance that her words and their response was wrong.
Brietbart claims that the intention of his post was not to demonize Sherrod or to provoke her superiors to dismiss her from her position. He asserts that he posted this excerpt in response to recent NAACP accusations toward the Tea Party movement, that the Tea Party is an organization that harbors racists and promotes a racist agenda. His goal was to level the field by pointing out the NAACP is just as culpable, if not more, than the Tea Party when it comes to endorsing racism. The video excerpt he posted appears to make that point very clear for everyone. To deny that those in attendance for Sherrod's presentation did not react to her stories in a manner that endorses racism is just foolhardy. To deny that her words were at the very least confusing is also an act of willful ignorance.
Sherrod's commitment to a lawsuit in response to this matter could stand to unravel the fabric of free-speech in this country. Her entire case relies on an opinion of personal injury arising from factual documentation of her statements. If she were to prevail in this case, what could that mean for the rest of us?
Here is a comparison, say you are out walking with a video camera in your hand, recording whatever you see. After a while you see a man approaching a dog in the middle of the street. You focus your lens upon the man in time to capture the man kicking the dog very hard. So hard that the dog is lifted into the air and hurled to the side of the street. You continue to record the incident as you also see a vehicle that had been speeding in the direction of the dog and that it was imminent that vehicle would collide with the canine had the man not intervened. Now, you go home and upload that video to your YouTube account or blog but you only post the portion of the video that shows the man kicking the dog and not that the man only did so to prevent the dog from being run over. Would it be okay for that man to sue you because you did not include the entire video? Is it just, that because your video cast that man in a negative light that he is now able to request judgment against you for not making him look good in your video?
This entire debacle really has spun out of control. Shirley Sherrod has been very stubborn about the incident, she refuses to take responsibility for her words but rather, she expects an observer to take the responsibility for her.
Here is one last question about this situation. Given the fact that Sherrod has admitted to behaving in a racist manner in the past, could it stand to reason that she would not have maintained her current stance had the man who posted the video been an African-American? Discuss.
-Mr. Polsysllabic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)