An experiment, something you can try right now at your keyboard

[The Straight Story]

Go to someplace like http://news.google.com/ (or the bing news site, yahoo, etc)

Type in Homeless Man

See what you get.

Then type in Homeowner, or other words similar.

Try Unemployed - note the type of stories you see (words like help, fear, distress, crisis) and then compare it to words like employed, working, etc

Type in wealthy and note the other keywords in the headlines you find (some I came up with on first page, cutting taxes, Children Who Learn Self-Control Become More Successful, Wealthy , etc and so on).

Alone this may not mean a lot, but after time people will see over and over that people of a certain income, race, gender, etc are linked (at least in the media) are connected to other negative words. Few cover stories about a homeless person who does something positive, but there will be lots of stories of corporations helping out folks by fund raisers etc - even if said corporation does 100x as much negative.

Pick some words or phrases, search news sites - you will certainly find some positive and negative on both sides of the coin, but what percent of the total do they represent?

Pick some words, go through a few pages of stories, and if you can let us know what you get (although one day of stories is not a lot to go on, I do this everyday for words like bans, homeless, proposes, etc - as a side note, I don't ever see many stories about bans being lifted...but that is for another thread).

[RandomThoughts]

1. The concept of 'bans'

That is a threat used to try and control people. I came to the conclusion that is putting society in different boxes.

the 'picked' boxes, and the people the picked try to ban.

from that I came to the conclusion that to join the picked group I would have to agree with the idea of banning, and have seen banning based on wrong logic, or for the continuation of the group only, regardless of the actual value added by the group.

So I came to the conclusion that the 'picked' group was using some thing they had or could claim to have to make it seem better to be in that group, or to take away from the banned group.

So the obvious correction to that problem was to remove what the pick group has that they can only claim to have by that group affiliation, since that affiliation failed to defend itself.

It is a pretty logical conclusion, and from there the picked group ends up banning themselves as they are not in the group that ends up being the better place to be. And the banned group is not about people that are out there trying to dominate or control other people.

Although the banned group usually lets in any of the 'picked' group that needs help.