A Geek With Guns

Huh:

A bill introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature has some folks scratching their heads, as it prohibits “the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses.”

I didn’t realize that was a problem.

Is the name of your wireless access point something racist, bigoted, or otherwise offensive? If so you could find yourself subject of an investigation because the police apparently have nothing else to do:

A bigot named their WiFi signal “F— All Jews and N—-” — and now cops are investigating.

The hateful signal I.D. popped up on the iPhone of a 28-year-old mom inside a Teaneck, N.J. recreation center, where her 3-year-old daughter was attending dance class.

The offending signal was coming from a router connected in the Richard Rodda Community Center in the the township, located 10 miles outside New York City.

[...]

The woman, who is African-American, rushed to the office, and informed employees and other parents of the hateful WiFi connection.

Police were called, and when they responded they located the router in the rec center, township Police Chief Robert Wilson said.

You know what would have been a far saner solution? Had an employee of the Community Center simply located the access point and either unplugged it or renamed the network. It’s really a simple thing to do and doesn’t require calling the police in to investigate.

Via Another Gun Blog I found another example of the state passing another law to make something that was legal illegal:

The state Senate this week is expected to vote on a bill barring school employees from having sex with students of any age.

[...]

The bill was sparked by concerns from prosecutors who said they were unable to charge teachers who had sex with students after the students turned 18, including one who waited until the day after the girl’s birthday before taking to her a hotel room.

You read correctly, because two consenting adults had sex a law is being rammed through to make the act illegal. Why the fuck not? There are just too many things one can do in life that aren’t yet illegal and we can’t have that. Sure an 18 year-old can vote, go to war, smoke cigarettes, act in porn, and buy a long gun but they can’t make such a mature decision as to who they will have sex with.

What really galls me about this law is the fact it’s being passed because two consenting adults had sex and some prosecutor thought they shouldn’t have. If people have their panties all in a bunch about a teach having sex with an 18 year-old student wouldn’t it have been easier to, I don’t know, fire the teacher? I know it’s an entirely crazy concept but I believe it should be looked into. Many companies have professional codes of conduct that employees are required to sign. You know what clause can be found in many of these codes of conduct? Prohibitions against having relationships with co-workers. In other words if you’re caught banging a fellow co-worker both of you can get fired.

Every time somebody says there ought to be a law there almost always shouldn’t.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Secretary Ray LaHood has been demanding a blanket ban on all cellphone usage by drivers, going so far as to advocate cell phone jammers be built-in to every automobile. Now things are heating up as NHTSA is officially pushing for a ban on all portable electronic usage, with the exception of GPS, while driving:

According to the NHTSA’s latest numbers, 3,092 people died in 2010 as the result of distracted driving, including talking on a cell phone or texting. While that number is down from 2009, when NHTSA reported 5,484 “distraction-related” traffic deaths, the numbers aren’t comparable because of a change in how the agency categorizes accidents. And despite laws in many states banning handheld cellphone use and texting while driving, a driver survey by NHTSA found that nearly half of drivers are still making calls from their phones, and 10 percent are still reading text messages.

Last year I analyzed NHTSA’s numbers and found their claims of cell phone usage increasing the rate of accidents to be entirely false:

Like I said if cell phone usage has been causing automobile accidents it should be noted on the total number of accidents yearly. The data published by the NHTSA goes from 1988 to 2008 which is what we’ll concern ourselves with. So how much have automobile accidents increased? Here’s the funny thing, they haven’t. In fact the number of accidents has been on a slight downward trend since 1988.

In 1988 the total number of automobile accidents was 6,887,000, in 1990 it was 6,471,000, in 1995 it was 6,699,000, in 2000 it was 6,394,000, in 2005 it was 6,159,000, and finally in 2008 it was 5,811,000. It seems the only correlation that exists between the increase in cell phone subscribers and automobile accidents is a slight downward trend (which I’m absolutely not implying is causality).

Inevitably this is where somebody will point out the reason for the downward trend are laws banning cell phone usages while driving. The problem is that isn’t true. From what I’ve been able to find the first law banning cell phone usage while driving was enacted in New York in 2001. The downward trend in automobile accidents has been going on since the late ’80′s at the very least. If the downward trend was occurring before the first law banning cell phone usage while driving was enacted that indicate a third party reason. In fact a recent study confirms exactly what I’m saying.

It’s nice when I’ve written so many posts that I can simply reference previous posts to explain a point. The bottom line is automobile accidents have been on the decline since, at least, the 1980s while the first law banning cell phone usage in automobiles wasn’t passed until 2001 meaning a third factor must be playing into the dropping accident rate. Banning the use of all personal electronics by drivers is nothing but knee-jerk nanny state malarkey. Stupid people do stupid things and passing a law banning the use of portable electronics by drivers isn’t going to fix anything (but will give the state more money in the form of citations and tickets which is probably the real reason behind this push).

If this passes people like myself will no longer even be able to use portable MP3 players to play music in their vehicle. As with most government regulations this one is entirely reactionary to a non-existing problem and has numerous unintended consequences.

Militarization of the civilian police force is a continuing concern for many of us. What was supposedly a peace keeping force to ensure the protection of the populace has been twisted into a force to fight various domestic wars. Right now our civilian police force is fighting a war on drugs and domestic terrorism while ramping up for a war on counterfeit goods. As more of these domestic wars are declared by Congress the militarization of our civilian police force advances. Now along with armored personell carriers, SWAT teams, and machine guns the police are starting to openly use military drones:

Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm on June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three counties. He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead, its sensors helped pinpoint the suspects, showing they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

Let’s look at the threat versus the level of force used by the police. Three individuals brandishing rifles chased off a Sheriff looking for six cattle. In response to this the Sheriff called in a SWAT team, a bomb squad, deputies from three counties, and a military drone. Since when have three men with rifles required the use of a practical army? Let’s do a cost to benefits ratio on this. Deploying a massive force costs a lot of money whereas six cattle aren’t worth a dreadful amount. It would have been far more economical had the Sheriff’s department simply paid the farmer the value of his six cattle and called it a day.

Economics aside we also have the frightening reality of the police moving in with military equipment to deal with three lightly armed individuals. But the part that scares me the most is the deployment of a Predator drone. Why? Militarization of our police force seems to only creep in the direction of more. When the idea of SWAT teams were first conceived they were used only for the most dire circumstances and only a few forces maintained these teams. Eventually more departments started maintaining SWAT teams and their usage moved from dealing with heavily armed situations involving hostages to mere drug raids against unarmed individuals. Following historical models the deployment of this Predator drone likely means there will be a continuing increase of drone usage by civilian police forces.

What could this lead to? Possible an eventual continuous surveillance of major cities or, a far scarier possibility, the use of armed drones. We already have sheriffs jacking themselves off over the possibility of using armed drones. Now that one public case has been solved using a Predator drone I only see the usage of such hardware increasing. Eventually I see the use of armed drones becoming as common as the usage of SWAT teams today.

Welcome to the United Police State of America.

Were you one of the people who thought zero tolerance in school was a good idea? If so you’re responsible for shit like this:

A 9-year-old boy North Carolina boy was suspended for calling a teacher “cute,” WSOCTV.com reports.

The boy’s mother, Chiquita Lockett, said the principal of Brookside Elementary in Gastonia called her after the incident to say the comment was a form of “sexual harassment.”

Apparently calling a girl cute is sexual harassment. Going back I wonder how many sexual harassments charges I should have against me under these new guidelines. Seriously the kid was nine fucking years old, I doubt he’s old enough to even know what sexual harassment is. Oh, and let’s not forget this gem:

The news of the North Carolina boy’s suspension comes as a Massachusetts elementary school is investigating a first-grader for sexual harassment after the boy struck another boy his age in the groin.

The mother of the accused 7-year-old tells the Boston Globe that her son was fending off another child, who had choked him in an altercation on the school bus on Nov. 22.

Sure why not? Hell we should just implement thoughtcrime while we’re at it. Can we make holding hands punishable under sexual harassment clauses while we’re at it? I mean there are still physical interactions out there where kids aren’t being nailed with sexual harassment charges and we can’t fucking have that.

Everybody who thought zero tolerance was a good idea please kindly hurl yourselves off of a cliff and save the rest of humanity from further stupidity.

One of the lesser known battles in the pursuit of liberty involves the freedom to chose what you eat. The state has been cracking down hard on raw and organic food producers in the name of safety and one of their primary targets has been raw milk. We hear horror stories about the ill raw milk has inflicted upon the populace yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently was forced to admit not one person has been killed by ingesting raw milk for 11 years:

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refuses to acknowledge that, based on all available statistics, raw milk produced on clean, small-scale farms is actually far safer than pasteurized milk from factory farms. But the agency did admit earlier this year, after being pressed and warned of a potential Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request if it failed to comply, that not a single person has died from raw milk consumption in over a decade.

This may come as a shock to some who, because of all the propaganda about the alleged dangers of raw milk, are convinced otherwise, but it is true — one of the two deaths often cited by the CDC as evidence that raw milk is dangerous was actually linked to the consumption of raw queso fresco cheese, which is currently outlawed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And the other is likely linked to an adulterated raw milk product as well, rather than to raw milk.

Here’s the thing, you are the sole owner of your body and thus are the only one who should have a say in what gets put into it. If you don’t want to drink raw milke that’s fine but using force to prevent other people from doing it is abhorrent. The nanny state was out of hand ages ago but it’s only getting worse with news regulations passed, what seems like, every day that attempt to further restrict and control our behavior.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released a new scare piece talking about how rampent prescription painkiller abuse is today:

Abuse of prescription painkiller have reached “epidemic” levels in the US, a government report says.

Overdoses of pain relievers cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined, the report has found.

This looks spuriously like another of those we-want-more-government-money-so-we’re-going-to-create-a-fear-mongering-report-justifying-that-need reports. Painkiller abuse is nothing new nor something that can be prevented but now the CDC is looking for something new to regulate so it’s the next thing on the list. After all their proposed “solution” to this “epidemic” will likely require new sweeping powers and the hiring of more government goons:

Officials believe state health policies can help reverse the trend.

The report recommends tracking prescriptions more carefully and cracking down on “pill mills” (clinics that prescribe drugs inappropriately) and “doctor shopping” (when patients collect prescriptions from several doctors).

“This highlights the importance of states getting policies right on preventing drug abuse,” CDC Thomas Frieden told the Associated Press news agency.

Here’s the thing, shutting down “pill mills” and stopping patients from “doctor shopping” isn’t going to prevent anybody from buying Tylenol and Advil at their local Target. Thus the only logical direction that can be derived from this report is, ultimately, the regulation of over-the-counter painkillers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the CDC eventually demands that currently over-the-counter painkillers be treated like medications containing pseudoephedrine are today.

I wonder what will happen when the federal government eventually regulates everything in the country. How will individual agencies jockey for more money and power then? It’s likely a very important problem that each agency is currently putting agents in charge of investigating.

As part of the government If You See Something Do Something campaign many states have enacted restrictions against young drivers. The government saw that young drivers were involved in more accidents than older drivers and decided that something must be done (to protect the children) so they decided to jump into enacted legislation that restricted various actions that younger drivers were allowed to take. What these bureaucrats never stopped to consider was the possibility that inexperience, and not merely age, was the root cause of the higher accident rates among younger drivers. As Bruce Schneier points out it appears as though inexperience may be the actual problem:

For more than a decade, California and other states have kept their newest teen drivers on a tight leash, restricting the hours when they can get behind the wheel and whom they can bring along as passengers. Public officials were confident that their get-tough policies were saving lives.

Now, though, a nationwide analysis of crash data suggests that the restrictions may have backfired: While the number of fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-old drivers has fallen, deadly accidents among 18-to-19-year-olds have risen by an almost equal amount. In effect, experts say, the programs that dole out driving privileges in stages, however well-intentioned, have merely shifted the ranks of inexperienced drivers from younger to older teens.

All these restrictions have managed to accomplish is kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. Since 16 and 17 year-old kids aren’t allowed to drive at night they are unable to gain experience at driving in the dark so when they finally are legally able to do so they make mistakes.

So what’s the solution? I would say we should remove these laws as it’s been demonstrated that they aren’t increasing safety but simply pushing the problem down the road. But then we have those people out there that subscribe to the belief that if something doesn’t work we need to try it again, only harder:

McCartt said the solution may be to expand graduated driver licensing programs to include 18- and 19-year-olds who are getting behind the wheel for the first time. The idea isn’t without precedent: In New Jersey, such rules apply to all initial driver’s license applicants under the age of 21.

“The concept of easing drivers into riskier driving situations could apply to older teens as well,” she said.

But Males, who has studied California’s program, said it was inappropriate to impose such restrictions on legal adults and noted that the rules could disqualify them from holding certain jobs.

“That’s a terrible idea,” he said. “That’s saying the programs didn’t work, so we’ll have to make them even stronger.”

Yes that must be the solution! By Thor in Valhalla we may need to go so far as to put these restrictions in place on people as old as 50 years of age!

Since trashing lying around everywhere is displeasing to most human societies our race as spend a lot of time developing means of ensuring that trash is disposed of in an orderly manner. Apparently New York has a slightly different view and prefers to punish the people living their for being sanitary:

Darbe Pitofsky, 83, said she was on her way for a cup of coffee around 6:30 a.m. on June 25 when she threw a brown bag filled with old papers in a city litter basket near her apartment on East 71st Street.

[...]

She said the worker demanded a form of identification and threatened to “put her away” if she didn’t comply.

Pitofsky said it took the worker 25 minutes to write the summons and when she complained that it would cost her $100, she said he threatened to make it $300.

See in New York a trash can isn’t actually a trash can. The nanny state there has seen fit to make certain trash cans fit for only household trash while others are fit for household or business trash. What’s the difference? I haven’t a clue because I’m a logical human being and therefore have a hard time understanding the justifications given by politicians for the stupid shit they enact.

I’m sure somebody reading this is thinking that the lady could have just avoided the fine if she had followed the rules. True. But I do find it interesting that she faces a lower maximum fine for outright littering than throwing “household or business trash” into a pedestrian-only trash can:

8. Except for any violation of subparagraph one of paragraph b or paragraph c of subdivision seven of this section by a person using or operating a motor vehicle, or any violation of subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven of this section, or any violation of paragraph d of subdivision seven of this section, the violation of any provision of this section shall constitute an offense punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed ten days or both.

So if you have refuse that you wish to dispose of and it qualifies as “household or business trash” it’s actually in your best interest to throw it on the ground and walk away. If caught littering the maximum fine is $250.00 while disposing of trash in the wrong type of bin apparently holds a maximum find of $300.00. Brilliant move New York, encourage littering by fining people for putting trash in the wrong types of trash bins.