Subscribe: Straight From The Nicholarse
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
binary  don  good  government  hate  idea  life  might  people  problem  process  state  things  time  welfare state  welfare  world 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Straight From The Nicholarse

The C.O.N.

I often write about politics but I don't support your political party.

Updated: 2018-01-15T16:31:02.724+00:00


Her Majesty's Government


When describing the rulers of the UK I insist on using the phrase "Her Majesty's Government". This is not because I think The Queen directly governs our country; it's my way of trying to point out that the people who we elect to do that job clearly don't either.

Her Majesty's Government is in charge and by that I am referring to the civil servants, the intelligence agencies and the 'power families', one of the most important of which The Queen belongs to.

It's my way of reminding you, dear reader, that there is a Government within our Government, a secret state, hidden in plain view in the UK. Once you understand that you can start to understand why politicians seem to have no power. It also explains why they rarely seem to do what they said they were going to before they entered "Her Majesty's Government". In the main most politicians seem to me to have about as much power as the public relations department of a major corporation.

This quote from a debate in Parliament in 1988 nails the point well:

"The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion."

- Tony Benn.

They were discussing the Spycatcher controversey at the time and looking at making it even harder for anyone to reveal information about the inner workings of MI5 or MI6.

Since then more laws have been passed to keep the secret state both secret and powerful. But something is changing, the way information works has altered and "the age of secrets is over". I still believe we're at a party and the lights are being switched on, metaphorically speaking we will inevitably notice some people are not who they seemed to be in the forgiving darkness.


Horrible wan


“It's my belief that history is a wheel.

'Inconstancy is my very essence,' says the wheel. 

'Rise up on my spokes if you like but don't complain when you're cast back down into the depths.'

Good times pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it's also our hope. The worst of times, like the best, are always passing away."
24 Hour Party People, Tony Wilson


In my experience life is a strange but constant process of death and rebirth. The death throes of one lifetime leave debris which is then rebuilt into a new life that emerges from the dust and destruction of the last. Even though I'm trying not to I'm already writing in metaphor, it's not possible to speak so generally about living without it. That said, it's a nice tight metaphor; for example, when I left secondary school the concept of me as a school kid died, as a physical reality, and was reborn into me as a student at University.

That particular example was a big one for me. I left home and moved to Essex, my old identity had gone and I was left to reshape who I was in a wholly new environment. Parts of who I was remained constant and other bits got left behind. Only for that to keep happening as I moved into media and so forth.

This process occurs on a smaller scale each day. Wake up with a list of things to do and that night, when you've finished them, you're a slightly different person. You're no longer the person who has a big list of things to do. Death and rebirth, a constant feature of life. Right down to the absurd micro level, the old you before you breathe in and the 'new you' when you brreathe out.

It's in the big life changes though, where the scale of change is more overwhelming, that the process can be seen clearly. It's a weird thing.

Been listening to a little too much Jordan Peterson I think.


Yer blued


A level results are out at the moment. Congratulations if you did well and happen to be one of the 200 or so people reading this little blog I've started scribbling out. Or, more likely, well done to your kids if they've come up trumps in that little life compettition we've organised for them.

Yep, kids, that's right. That's what you are at that age. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing something grown ups can and do do frequently, they're selling something to you with a bent truth or two. Watch out for that, it keeps happening to you once you leave school or college.

Furthermore you're about to learn that what you've learned is not 100% correct; it's just the best we've got at the moment. There's a bit of lefty politics swirled in there, which is a result of the left wing bias that educational institutions inevitably pick up[1]. There's stuff in there where we're wrong but few to none of us suspect it. Then there's the bits they didn't want to mention.

It's the best we can do. The next bit, a degree, is not in my opinion quite as much of a challenge. You get more focus there, it's easier as a result.


[1] Lefty bias? What do you mean? Why are you so ruddy right wing these days?

Well, if you're into sciences and maths you're unlikely to be stuck for a job. If you're into the humanities, that might not be the case. People genuinely do shout "we need an open heart surgeon, it's a matter of life or death". No one has ever said the same of someone who might help you get a good grasp of Shakespeare's iambic pentameter. And if they did, they were either joking or they're an idiot.

This means that even the cream of the crop of the humaities students may find difficulty finding regular and reliable work. So, they often end up back in the teaching profession. This means the best of the best get fed back into the system and become great teachers. They go on to produce even better students. The cycle continues, each year the humanities getting better at their line of work and the sciences losing to the eager commercial world, where practical skills can literally be turned into gold or food.

This is why they have to offer incentives to people from the sciences, to get them back into the system, away from all the other people who also value their qualification. It's around £25k if you've got a degree in physics. It's £4k for someone who can teach history. Oh. There we are, that's how much value you are to the system, if you did the humanities. One fifth of a science teacher.

I nailed a degree in English and European literature, 2:1. I'm comfortable with the fact it's an award that is worth less than one in science. No problem.

Diabolo Iago Eagle


This is mental but strangely appropriate. Cat wine and dog beer. You imagine cats being more wine types I think. Dogs probably would love a good beer. There's a wonderful polarity to our two most common pets. One, the cat, charms you over time. The other, the dog, is charismatic, usually in my experience instantly.

I'm pleased to say I did not buy these products.

The problem with redistributing wealth once the rat race has been won


There's nothing worse than operating your brain with a faulty metaphor. Ideas are like computer software, a slight oversight in the logic of the programme will consistently produce sometimes dramatic oversights. At core I had the idea of wealth "redistribution" in my mind for quite some time. However on closer consideration the word is deeply misleading, it seems to imply that there was some point in the past where wealth was evenly distributed and that we can somehow reach it again by revising who currently has what in terms of money.

When was this eden? This point in the past when everyone had an equal share of "wealth"? There isn't one.

So, once it's "redistributed", presumably by force, is there a point at which we can stop this process? Should we allow wealth to freely circulate at any point or constantly allow someone to decide who should have what? If not do we act all surprised when the economy freezes?

Furthermore the idea that "the rat race has been won" is deeply misleading. The world's economy is not fixed like ice but fluid like water. Our nation is rich at the moment but the rat race is not over. Times change, nations rise and fall.

The question is, should we have a system which is geared toward wealth "redistribution"? Or should we not? Or is there a compromise between the two? I suspect the answer lies in the latter but believe anyone's attempt will be given clarity if this faulty metaphor is dismissed.


Each day


Currently working through Dr Peterson's "Self Authoring" programme. It's intense, really intense. You divide your life up into several epochs and then you nail 6 or 7 big events that occured in each. You then write what happened, that's where I'm at now. Me and a mate are doing it together, as self improvement buddies. It's weird and, like I say, quite intense.

I've always been fascinated by psychology. However that fascination has been tempered by a huge does of skepticism. Or maybe that's "resistance", my natural inclination to avoid seeing a shrink. The worry I might need one, dunno. Like I say always been very skeptical.

It's alike to my fascination with the occult and 'magick'. The two fields seem to be the same, just one of them has a closer adherence to the scientific method than the other. As I write that I'm not sure which one I'm refering to there actually. I've met plenty of daft psychologists and dogmatic magicians who should know better. Maybe I'm judging practitioners rather than that which they claim to be practicing.

The similarities are between the two areas are acute. The idea that the material and immaterial world connect through the nexus point of the humam mind, that ideas and memories have some sort of presence in the material world, very easily bleeds into ghosts, superstition, magic spells and, inevitably, psychiatry.

That sounds like I'm joking but I'm really not. If you've got a demon in your head a psychiatrist or a Catholic priest may fix it; exorcisms and the psychiatrist's chair are very popular because for some they give relief and a sense of clarity.

The difficulty seems to be twofold with self analysis. Firstly you need to learn the tricks and secondly you need to turn your focus inward without fear or favour. That's what I'm currently doing.

If I understand this process correctly we're aiming for "individuation" 


Random democratic thoughts...


I don't vote, I don't think it makes any difference.Politically I do not classify myself as either left or right. I am an individual with a unique perspective. My points of view come from the experiences I've had in my life. It seems odd to me that we have to pretend we agree with an apparently arbitrary shopping list of ideas if we want to join either of the left wing or right wing clubs. I'm open to the idea of wealth redistribution; not so keen on fighting man made global warming. I don't like being part of the EU but disagree with the idea of us having a death penalty. The list goes on. My points of view do not fit in just the "left" or "right" categories. Chances are, if you use more than one half of your brain, neither do yours.The idea of left and right thinking is related to very old occult beliefs about the division between our heads and our hearts. The right is supposed to be the head, the brain, the natural leader you want in charge. The left is our soul, our sense of love and "goodness". This is why you get 'shy Tories'. "The left" at its most orthodox is seeped in emotion rather than thought. This easily spills over into hate, as love often can. Understanding this dynamic helps you to see why the left are so quick to threats and angry words.As "the nasty party" the Tories play on this idea that they are the sensible ones. Labour fell into the trap of ramping up the emotion. Who do you want in charge when you've run out of money, an emotional character or a level headed thinker? Little England can answer that question in less time than you just did. That's the reality of elections within the broken system that is the UK.Or, this might be a good thing. The advantage of the Tories is more people are aware there's a problem. The only disadvantage is the sheer volume of fools who think The New Labour Order will solve it. The practical upshot of this is they seem to think the best thing to do is focus their emotions and hate on those who disagree with them. If there's a moral to the story of the election, with the "shy Tories", it's that this tactic will not help in the long run.At core the reason I don't vote is because I think we need to deal with the real problems; not the theater constructed nearby designed to take your focus away. The most apparent problem to me is that we do not have a true democracy in this country. That's a big difficulty. It means our nation is doing things which its nationals would likely not support or vote for. These things are being done in our name and the victims are often not from this country. The people who live in those countries think we agree with these things because, we say we're a democracy.As it is there's plenty of damage done by us around the world to people who don't deserve it. Iraq, is part of that, but the fuller picture is terrible. Most of this damage comes from decisions we 'the people' have never been consulted on. How is it that arms dealing is one of our biggest industries? I'll tell you, it's because the people are not in charge, Her Majesty's Government runs this operation and the Monarchy has a special secret room for arms deals.How is it that the ‪#‎CSAInquiry‬ - an inquiry into pedo rings at the highest level of Govt - hasn't got off the ground yet? Same reason. You're not in charge, your mates aren't in charge, none of us are. They are.Why did we bail out the banks without any debate? Ditto.We need to assert control over the ideas and values of this country. One of them is democracy. Lets try that first and then see if the other problems start to fall into place.Personally I support this idea of "direct democracy" which has been touted by various fringe political characters recently. Votes on every aspect of legislation via refferendum would suit me just fine. I'd be an active voter, I voted in the last referendum. Prizes for guessing which way.NM [...]

Non binary politics.


The term non-binary has been adopted in gender politics. It's controversial but a 'non-binary gender' rejects the duality of being either male or female. This logic leads to words like "ze" which refers to neither "he" not "she". Unlike androgyny, where one combines aspects of both, the aspiration is to an identity which does not consistently conform at all.Leaving aside the other controversies regarding this, and there are many, the biggest difficulty for most is that to accept this argument you must accept gender as a 'social construct', a description of behaviours, rather than genetics. Your position on this debate usually comes down to your accepting the terms "he" or "she" have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual organs.In this sense probably most of us are 'non-binary' on a small scale, over our lives our behaviour usually varies. The cultural definitions of gender have their extremes, the "girly girl" or "man's man" but those are the exceptions, generally most people fit somewhere in between. Furthermore, where you are on this spectrum may change over time, even if it's just that as a boy you used to quite like the colour pink or, as a grown woman, you develop a love for playing five aside football.The difficulty for a non-binary relates to admitting it. This is because, in terms of gender, we've evolved with a need to identify humans we can mate with. Binary human sexuality allows us to understand people in a specifically productive way. In practical terms, if you want to make a baby, half the population is unable to cooperate with you. Given the limited time available to do that it's incredibly useful to split people into two types, those who can help you and those who cannot.This is the advantage of binary thinking, it saves time and energy. Dividing things into categories simplifies the complexities of the world into manageable chunks of information. It controls information by limiting it; the very essence of rational thought. Without this the western world would not have advanced into the industrial revolution and certainly could not have made it into the digital age.Binary processing is an essential part of digital technology, particularly computers. All of them use forms of binary code, a process whereby a string of eight units using only 0's and 1's can represent 256 possible values, resulting from different combinations of those numbers. Recently, as computers increase their processing power the limits of binary are becoming more and more abstract. Nowadays we can use it to simulate a reality that our audio or visual senses can almost be convinced by. For example, if you have music on in the background as you read this, it's likely to be digital sound. Again it's using just two units arranged into complex patterns.Here the limits of binary can be understood. Despite the fact that from one perspective it maybe shouldn't be, analogue sound is still better quality. In part this is why vinyl records continue to sell but CDs are becoming obsolete. The difference is that a vinyl record is recorded by physically cutting the record to vary in direct correspondence to the air pressure generated by the original sound. Even the bits of the audio we cannot hear are recorded by this process. Theoretically the process can almost precisely match the original sound wave, with nothing missing.Digital sound does not do this; it saves time by ignoring frequencies beyond the capacity of the human ear. That was one of it initial technical innovations, to remove information and call it progress. This is done to save space on the CD. Furthermore the recording process changed the physical properties of the sound into a series of snapshots which are then fired at you in pulses rather than a continuous sound. A CD for example uses 44,100 of these snapshots per second. The human ear, as we understand it, should not be able to hear the differ[...]

Signed sealed and delivered


How awesome are Klaatu?

You know when someone suggests you listen to a band and then maybe you listen to like one track and it's okay but you don't follow it up. Then you're mucking about on spotify you pop them on, turns out they're ace?

That's what's happened here.


Beware ye the trendy academic



I was late...


I mentioned yesterday that I've been re-reading my blog as I try to sort this site out and make it more 'professional'.'ve been in two minds all day as to whether or not I should announce my little weblog to the people that listen to my late night talkshow. The reason for this is that I'm not sure that everyone who listens to it fully understands the show. Today, like most days, I've had another phone call from my boss telling me that someone's complained about the show. I'm utterly bored of that mentality. The complainer's, not my boss. I can't really tell you what the complaint was about because each of them has to be forwarded to a government body which then decides if what I said was against the law. It'd be silly to chip off about it here. But the thing that does me is why do these people listen? I used to think people in radio made up complaints to make themself look tough and hard. I honestly don't think anything I do on my radio show is 'shocking' or 'controversial' and it always depresses me when other people do.So, in the event that I do announce it on my show and anyone bothers to look at it, hello. Don't start complaining about things that aren't actually doing any harm.Strange how themes keep reoccuring in my life. Firstly I've started blogging again and I'm not sure if I should 'announce it' or not to my little twitter following. This is because I have an ambiguous attitude to humanity, both a philanthropic and misanthropic vibe in my little brain. Largely because I fear being misunderstood.As I said yesterday, I think perhaps I'm suffering from PTSD, or, to elaborate, post traumatic broadcaster disorder. Constantly qualifying my thoughts each time I publish them online, looking over my shoulder worrying if I've said the wrong thing. That's not how the internet should be. It should be full of half thought out nonsense. Actually, that is how the internet is. There's even a name for it, "shit posting". I think that's what we should aspire to, lots of it.The point though is that this 'blog is an oldskool internet blog, it's full of "shit posting". Posts you've splattered out for the sake of it. To sharpen the bowels of your mind, get them a bit looser than usual. I used to write one of these a day, for fun. Maybe one of two entries each week were worth it, the rest are utter balls.Now, Twitter is similar in practice but different in aspiration. It's alike to my old Hallam FM phone in show; me talking like I'm some guy on a mountain throwing out truth bolts. A very different personna to the 'blog, if you leave aside my politics rants which were often reposts from other sites I've written for.I do advise keeping a diary of some sort by the way, dear reader. Public or private it's worth keeping track of how things are ticking over.Even if it is just to record the fact that a nice walk was had in the park today and a brief appearance on The Jon Gaunt show was had. Listen here: www.talk2meradio.comRedesigning the 'blog has hit a bit of a wall after google ads told me I was falsely linking to popular audio content! My podcast, it's vanished, you might have noticed? A couple of listeners had pointed it out to me but it hadn't occured that this would get me into trouble with the googles. Is there a more sinister company around? Yes, yes there is. But even so, as David Mitchell pointed out in the Guardian ages ago;There's something fishy about Google's motto, "Don't be evil." I'm not saying it's controversial but it makes you think, "Why bring that up? Why have you suddenly put the subject of being evil on the agenda?"This brings me to the subject of the podcast, I'm waiting on audioboom to make my channel live. Not sure what the issue is, emailed them yesterday, we'll see. Ha[...]

Good stories need peaks and troughs


I'm sat in a cafe waiting to pick up my girlfriend. This 'blog is about to get redesigned dramatically, I'm currently dicking about with the settings on it, trying to get it to look "professional".As I do this I'm re-reading some of the old entries and it seemed like a good idea to put in a new one, in the personal style that got this thing a few thousand readers at its height; rather than the formal style I've been trying to cook up over the last few years.[1]There's still occasional traffic through these parts, I think it's the foundation stone I'm going to try and build upon. Been making moves toward doing a podcast recently, it'll be here that it first appears. It's taking a while because I don't want to return to it and then realise I've not got enough time in my schedule to keep doing it, if you see what I mean.We did some good business with the previous one. The Cult of Nick got a few thousand listeners and helped me to meet some great people along the way. It led to the creation of Talk2MeRadio with Jon Gaunt, a man I've become good friends with over the years. The next one I do will just be under my name but its back catalogue will contain all the original episodes of The C.O.N. - a podcast which I am still hoping might stand the test of time.[2]My first ever entry on this blog contains the seeds of our main issue: used to write one of these years ago on the old website at work. It was quite good but some genius decided it'd be a good idea to delete it. I threw a hissy fit and quit writing for them for ages. Then I relented because I simply couldn't bare not to pump the bowels of my mind clean on a regular basis. Then they deleted it again just prior to a website re-launch which didn't include any 'blogs at all. Ruined.So now I've moved to here. The website where I'm just another div writing about his life, for the fun of it. Not for money. Actually that makes it seem somehow purer and more exciting.I've not changed. There's part of me that still feels as if it has no choice but to communicate with "the void" which, in this instance, is you, my dear reader. It's what I've done all my life. I can't stop. Speaking with people and seeing what they say is fascinating to me. However hustling that as a job which earns me money has always been problematic to me, I'm a working class lad from a place where you do a 'proper job'. Not doing physical work has always seemed like 'getting away with it' to me, rather than working.Ideally I want to do my podcast full time, I want it to be my main focus in the long term future. The problem is that part of me feels like it's a bit ruined if I earn money doing it. Like that makes it less 'pure' and exciting. That's because in many instances in my life it does and has; some of the radio stations I've worked on being further down that line than others. Worst case scenario for me is it becomes 'just a job'.Key to any long term way forward is that we maintain the free speech aspect of The C.O.N. By internet standards it's very very mild, not offensive at all really, but I'm aware of the fact lots of it could not be broadcast in the UK. I think I've got a kind of PTSD as regards free speech after working for broadcasters for so long. It's not paranoia though, the censors are always there waiting to get you.Specifically I'm looking at things like Patreon at the moment, if anyone has any other ideas or routes to funding do post them in the comments section.[3] It's tricky to discern if that's a way forward or not. The long and short of it is that ultimately I'll be asking the audience to fund things directly, we'd be looking at aiming to pull in around £23k a year, I can live on that and buy[...]

The secret the left do not want you to know...


The IEA have an excellent article on their site, Left-wing economics is no match for Alt-Right resentment. It explains "the greatest secret in lefty circles, still spoken about in hushed terms among mostly academic types [...] two high values of the left, diversity and welfare statism, are an unstable and electorally incompatible mix". "The problem is that the willingness to cough up taxes for a government bureaucracy to support people with whom you sense some identity draws on a tribal instinct. You might not love it but you put up with it because you somehow identify with the people on the receiving end. There but for the grace of God go you. But the less you personally identify with those on the receiving end, the less sympathetic you are and the less willing you are to pay.This is a fascinating observation because the ethic of the welfare state pretends to be benevolent toward marginalised groups. In practice, it only works by bolstering and feeding on identity politics. The larger the welfare state, the more the payers demand that it only benefit others like themselves.The more diverse the society, the less likely you are to feel as if your tribe is winning in this redistribution game. You are now vulnerable to political manipulation. The first demagogue to come along and say “look at the creeps who are winning at your expense” wins the game. It’s an enormously powerful message. It taps into a deep sense of injustice that people have. Diversity becomes the proverbial straw that breaks the welfare camel’s back.What does this breakage look like? It looks exactly like what we see around the developed world: the rise of nativism, police state authoritarianism, the boiling up of racialist feelings and movements, protectionist trade policies, centralisation of power in the hands of people who have no sympathy at all toward non-majority religions, races, and language groups.In practice, this political dynamic can get really wicked. Social welfare states, such have been built since World War II, are only politically stable in exactly the kinds of societies that are incompatible with the kind of world the left wants and the kind of people the left believes we should be."One of the first of those societies being Germany, the country who pioneered the welfare state in the late 1800s. Many readers will be one step ahead here, knowing this period leads to the Nazi party and National Socialism. In this light the state welfare system starts to look like the recipie for that disaster. The ingredients are: laws enforcing national health insurance, a pension, minimum wage, workplace regulation, vacations and unemployment insurance. The catalyst for this toxic brew to ferment into fascism, via democracy, is a popular emphasis and awareness of the nation's diversity.[1] It took around 50 years to produce an Adolf Hitler from such an enviroment. Our post-war welfare state is now of a similar age. The question facing us is: which do you prefer multiculturalism or welfare? The more multiculturalism you have, the less likely people are to support Government welfare. Just as the more your state welfare prevails your country enforces the more likely it is to turn toward national socialism and fascism in its purest form.The argument here is not that our presiding political leadership are fascists. Instead it is being said that the conditions necessary for fascism have been created in our time and country. They are an unintended consequence of our welfare system, coupled with our promotion of cultural and ethnic diversity.NM[1] Further reading.Choose: Diversity or the Welfare StateMarching to Bismarck's Drummer: The Origins of the Modern Welfare State[...]

The problem with hate crime.


Don't hate speechTo understand this problem try the following thought experiment, imagine a world where it is against the law for anyone to admit they hate you. Initially you might enjoy it as those expressing nasty or unpleasant thoughts about you are punished by our Government. Such special protection might even make you grateful to your protector, encouraging a relationship and status alike to that of a "teacher's pet" in the classroom of a secondary school.However, it wouldn't be long until you might notice your new status comes at a cost. Banning recreational drugs did not cause the problem to go away but instead drove it underground and, in a lot of cases, caused the substances to become more poisonous and addictive. The same pattern is occurring with the nation's "hate speech laws". With some prejudices now effectively classified as illegal the problem is not going away, it has instead gotten worse.Return to the teacher's pet analogy and imagine yourself a student in a classroom where no one can criticise you. Picture an announcement in the school assembly where all the pupils are informed of your special status. How would you feel? Think about the fact that in such a context your enemies are afraid to declare themselves and so now you are denied an opportunity to safely have it out with them. Ask how you identify the thugs who jumped you on the way home from school when teacher was nowhere to be seen, how do you come to understand the reasons no one will play with you in the playground? How do you become 'normal' in that context? Then try to challenge the inevitable creeping concern that people secretly whisper lies about you, pass notes around slandering you and have maybe even developed a coded language to allow them to publicly criticise you in the classroom?Paranoia would be natural as the realisation dawned that laws intended to protect you instead made your situation more dangerous, encouraging enemies to gain a tactical advantage as they become invisible. This is where protected minority groups find themselves 30 years after the "hate speech laws" were enacted, beginning with the pubic order act of 1986 but added to by successive Governments ever since, most notably in 1998 with "hate crime" legislation where any crime assumed to be motivated by prohibited prejudices was deemed worthy of stricter punishment.Rather than tackling the problem these laws have produced a series of worrying unintended consequences, the fruits of which we are now reaping. One of the worst is that they have hidden the issues behind a superficial illusion of tolerant speech, allowing the realities of the problem to fester in the darkness. This must concern anyone involved in the argument against prejudice because in reality it is on the increase. This is visible in the Government's own data: hate crime figures have consistently risen since they first began monitoring them in 2012.Partly this is because we've incentivised victims of crime to believe they were targeted because they are part of a protected minority group. Hate crime laws state that the perception of the victim is a significant factor in determining if a crime was motivated by a prohibited prejudice. Victims naturally tend to want the maximum punishment brought to bear on their attackers. Alleging the belief a hate crime has occurred likely increases the sev[...]

167 Dr Penny Sartori on Near Death Experiences


width="540" height="540" src="" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none;overflow:hidden;">