Month: June 2011

Government Jacking Up The Price of Electricity

Many greenies have been clamoring for stricter regulation of coal burning power plants but at the same time haven’t offered any viable alternatives (except for the few who support nuclear energy). As there is money to be made in slapping “green” on every product and charging more for it I’m not surprised companies and government officials have been catering to these environmentalists. A problem arises though when governments place regulations on private industries, the price of that industry’s products and services goes up because compliance with regulations is a very expensive business. This is exactly what is happening with the power production market:

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources.

Anybody who understands the damages done by government interference in the market could have told you this was the only possible outcome. By making coal plants more expensive to run the government has effectively increased your taxes by forcing power companies to put the additional cost of compliance onto you.

Many of the people who claim we need greener technologies (without actually offering viable ideas for creating such technologies at an affordable cost) also claim the government needs to step in an help the poor. How the fuck is this working out for you guys? The people most affected by increased costs due to government regulations are the poor. By advocating regulations that negatively impact power production you’ve caused a need to increase power rates and thus have ensure those who can barley afford electricity now are unlikely to afford it when the cost goes up by 60 percent to pay for compliance with your beloved regulations. Great job idiots.

Turning Your Keys Over to The Government

If you live in Cedar Falls, Iowa it’s officially time to perform an act of civil disobedience. Ordinance 2740, which requires every person with commercial property to surrender keys to said properties to the government under threat of force, was passed by a six to one vote against strong opposition from city residents:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFCLiij0CBA]

As the ordinance passed against the wishes of city denizens appealing to “representation” is a worthless endeavor here. When appealing to the “better nature” of government doesn’t work the next best thing is simply giving a big fuck you to those who think of you as a slave by ignoring their so-called laws. If you have commercial property in Cedar Falls either refuse to surrender keys to your property or give the city keys that don’t work. If the city tests the keys to ensure you gave them the right set give them a working key to test and change the locks as soon as the city’s thugs leave. The worst possible thing to do though is to surrender valid keys to your commercial properties because that will give those fuckers in the City Council exactly what they want and then they’ll decide they want more (probably keys to every home in the city).

It would be prudent to also call the members of the City Council (very late at night or early in the morning if you have their home phone numbers) an explain to them that they’re not going to have their cushy jobs next election cycle. This is the kind of abuse of authority that needs to be fought if we are to have any hope of regaining a free society.

A Blueprint for Not Getting Elected

Do you want to run for Congress but ensure you don’t get elected? If that’s you then Mike Barkley is the man for you to emulate because he’s ensured that he’ll never get elected:

Now the Manteca resident is seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress with his primary campaign platform being the repeal of the Second Amendment and any pre-existing doctrine of natural law, common-law or laws under state constitutions that allow the right to keep and bear arm.

Barkley, though, has no qualms with individuals exercising the privilege to possess weapons to protect themsleves. To address that he’s proposing a constitutional amendment that would impose an annual tax on every firearm in a household. Taxes would start at $10 for the first firearm, $20 for the second firearm, $30 for the third firearm, $100 each for the fourth through ninth firearms and $1,000 each for any firearm in excess of nine.

Granted he’s running for California which is one of the only states where a person with such a position could possibly get elected but even there I doubt such a candidate would get elected (Californians please don’t take this as a challenge, I don’t need to have yet another reason to hate politics in your state). But repealing the second amendment and taxing the ever living shit out of gun owners isn’t the only stupid thing Mr. Barkley is recommending:

And under his proposed amendment should a firearm be lost or stolen it would result in a $1,000 penalty with the penalty rescinded or refunded if the firearm is recovered. But there’s a big caveat to that: If the firearm is used in the commission of a felony then an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

Isn’t that a great position to have? First you turn the victim of a crime into a criminal by fining a victim of theft for the actions of the thief and then fine the victim again if the criminal performs another crime with the stolen gun. Hell with rock solid logic like that we’ll be looking to fine car owners if their vehicle gets stolen next.

Honestly with positions like this I don’t see Mr. Berkley has a legitimate candidate for Congress but I found these ideas stupid enough to be funny and thus worth posting about here. This is the kind of crazy shit anti-gunners come up with. They have such a hatred and/or fear of a mechanical device that they wish to punish everybody who owns one. Not only are they willing to take away our right to defend ourselves but they also want to turn victims of crimes into criminals.

It’s absolutely sickening to me that somebody would advocate punishing a victim of a crime. What’s next? Are we to fine people $1,000 because they were mugged? Should be fine the family members of murder victims? How far would such stupidity have to be carried before anti-gunners realized the idiocy of their concept?

Either way have fun not getting elected Mr. Berkley. Oh and your personal website (linked to in the article as I won’t link to that crap here) is shittier than mine which isn’t easy to pull off considering my lack of web design capabilities.

Department of Justice Officials a Bit Worried

It appears as though the administrators in the Department of Justice (DoJ) are a bit worried over the investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) smuggling guns into Mexico:

Officials at the Department of Justice are in “panic mode,” according to multiple sources, as word spreads that congressional testimony next week will paint a bleak and humiliating picture of Operation Fast and Furious, the botched undercover operation that left a trail of blood from Mexico to Washington, D.C.

I can understand why they’re in “panic mode.” The DoJ is a government organization that has been caught doing something illegal and trying to blame somebody else. Whenever government agencies get caught in such a situation they can look forward to a very stern talking to by our “representatives” and possible a threat involving not specific punishment if the department gets caught again.

Although I think the hearings will be interesting I doubt much will come of it. The government doesn’t exactly have a history of punishing departments that get caught doing illegal things. Honestly it appears as through the government’s job is to create a situation, blame somebody else for the situation, and then swoop in and claim they are the only means of fixing the situation. Considering this point it’s likely the DoJ will get a public talking to about how they shouldn’t have done this and an accommodation for a job well done behind the curtain. Yes I’m cynical but I think I have good reasons for being so.

Another Reason Florida’s Ban on Doctors Talking About Guns is Stupid

I’ve already stated that I think Florida’s law banning doctors from talking about guns is stupid. Not only does such a law crap all over the first amendment right to free speech but it also gags doctors who are gunnies like us. How are you and your doctor supposed to talk about last week’s shooting match you both attended if doing so will cause said doctor to lose his license to practice medicine?

Any law that prohibits free speech in any way is a bad law. The practice of speech goes both ways as you always have people both against and in favor of various things. By discriminating against a group of people two things have been accomplished; we have potentially alienated that group for supporting our side and we’ve made hypocrites of ourselves by claiming we support rights but then turning around and working against them. Florida’s law does nothing to help us (as no evidence was ever brought forth that doctors were conspiring to create a backdoor gun registry) and does a lot of make our movement look bad by making us appear as hypocrites.

Wisconsin Carry Plan B

Wisconsin remains one of only two states in the Union that doesn’t allow citizens some form of concealed carry. Although pro-rights activists have been trying to fix this a certain previous governor enjoyed the use of veto power to ensure the serfs remained unable to defend themselves. The hope this time around is that Governor Walker won’t be as big of a fucking idiot as former Governor Doyle and thus concealed carry legislation will finally pass in Wisconsin.

The first bill attempted was the best of all worlds and would allow people living in Wisconsin to carry as a right without any required government permission. It appears as though that bill can’t pass thus the backup plan is being enacted which is the same bill but would required people in Wisconsin to get a permit in order to carry. It sounds like this bill may have enough support to get through and by the sounds of it Governor Walker is in support of Wisconsin residences being able to defend themselves. Here’s hoping the people in Wisconsin soon have the same rights as people living in a majority of the other states in the Union.

Monday Metal: Revolution Calling by Queensrÿche

Last week there were no Monday posts and thus no Monday metal entry but I think I can make up for that by bringing something sufficiently awesome this week. Behold one of my favorite Queensrÿche songs off of my favorite album of theirs, Revolution Calling from Operation: Mindcrime:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7avDRrjtgy0]

Doctors Suing Over Florida Law Against Them Asking About Firearms

A short while back a Florida law was passed that barred doctors from asking patients whether or not they owned firearms. I posted about disagreement with this law on the grounds that it prohibits free speech. It appears as through some Florida doctors agree with me and are now suing on grounds that the law violates their right to free speech:

Physicians and the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics sued Florida Gov. Rick Scott, claiming the “Physician Gag Law” he signed last week unconstitutionally bars doctors from asking patients simple questions about guns and gun safety, and threatens them with loss of their medical licenses if they do so. More than 170 Florida children die each year from gunshots.

Three Florida doctors sued the governor and four other top Florida officials in Miami Federal Court. The plaintiff doctors are joined by the Florida Chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians.

Unfortunately I find myself in agreement with these doctors. Prohibiting somebody from asking another questions is a form of censorship. If a doctor wishes to ask me if I own firearms that’s their right and it’s my right to tell them where to stick their question. Should the doctor continue with his inquiry I can find another doctor to provide my medical needs. What I don’t agree with are some of the claims being made by the doctors:

The physicians say the dangers are elevated in Florida, which has a higher level of gun ownership than the national average: “Firearms pose particular risks in households with children. Every day in America 65 children and teens are shot with firearms, and eight of them die. One third of U.S. homes with children younger than eighteen have a firearm. More than 40 percent of gun-owning households with children store their guns unlocked and one quarter of those homes store them loaded.

Anti-gunners spout statistics like this often and then you find out that their definition of a child is a person between 0 and 25 years of age or some other absurd stretch. There is no justifiable reason why a physician needs to know whether or not I own firearms and they shouldn’t be making claims that such information is important to them. I will agree that they have the freedom to ask whether or not I own firearms but they certainly have no reason to know such information.

The Wall Street Journal and Al-Jazeera Offering False Anonymity to Whistle Blowers

Lately people have been holding Al-Jazeera up as some kind of Greek god of journalism. I never subscribed to that idea and find Al-Jazeera to be yet another news source with commercial interests (which I have absolutely nothing against). As a commercial entity Al-Jazeera have to play by certain rules of the state will take away their ability to do business.

When I heard that both the Wall Street Journal and Al-Jazeera were going to offer means for whistle blowers to submit documents anonymously I assumed there was some kind of catch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) once again proved my concerns correct:

Despite promising anonymity, security and confidentiality, AJTU can “share personally identifiable information in response to a law enforcement agency’s request, or where we believe it is necessary.” SafeHouse’s terms of service reserve the right “to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities” without notice, then goes even further, reserving the right to disclose information to any “requesting third party,” not only to comply with the law but also to “protect the property or rights of Dow Jones or any affiliated companies” or to “safeguard the interests of others.” As one commentator put it bluntly, this is “insanely broad.” Neither SafeHouse or AJTU bother telling users how they determine when they’ll disclose information, or who’s in charge of the decision.

So if you submit any information to either of these services they reserve the right to turn your ass in upon request. If you wish to submit anonymous information as a whistle blower you’re better off using WikiLeaks as they have a pretty good track record of keeping their sources anonymous and have no terms or agreements that state they will turn your ass over to anybody upon request. In addition to reserving the right to turn your ass in both sites also lack anonymity:

Despite their public claims to the contrary, both SafeHouse and AJTU disclaim all promises of confidentiality, anonymity, and security.

SafeHouse offers users three upload options: standard, anonymous, and confidential. The “standard” SafeHouse upload “makes no representations regarding confidentiality.” Neither does the “anonymous” upload which, as Appelbaum pointed out, couldn’t technically provide it anyway. For “confidential” submissions, a user must first send the WSJ a confidentiality request. The request itself, unsurprisingly, is neither confidential nor anonymous. And until the individual user works out a specific agreement with the paper, nothing is confidential.

Similarly, AJTU makes clear that “AJTU has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information, in whatever form, contained in any submission.” Worse, AJTU’s website by default plants a trackable cookie on your web browser which allows them “to provide restricted information to third parties.” So much for anonymity!

Yes neither of these systems allow for anonymity or legal protection against government (and in the case of the Wall Street Journal any third-party) requests for personal information about submitters. If you want to blow the whistle on something make sure you don’t use either the Wall Street Journal’s or Al-Jazeera’s services.

Joyce Foundation Bribing Journalist to Write Anti-Gun Studies

The Joyce Foundation, the same assholes who bankroll the Brady Campaign, are pretty well known in the pro-rights community for providing funding to almost anybody who will push their anti-rights agenda. The Buckeye Firearms Association has a nice writeup about the Joyce Foundation using money to get journalists to write anti-gun stories.

I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that journalists should be unbiased but I do feel perfectly fine with pointing out potential reasons for bias. There is a huge incentive for a journalist to write anti-gun stories if a large foundation is willing to float them Federal Reserve notes for doing it. This tactic is often used to get desired results from studies; somebody gives a bunch of researchers money, express to those researchers the preferred bias, and then has them set out to get a study that proves that preferred bias. You can prove anything if you twist the numbers enough which is evident when anti-gunners reveals their numbers of people killed by guns each year but only mention in the very tiny print that a huge chunk of those deaths were suicides (which are self-inflicted deaths and therefore really can’t be counted when talking about gun violence).

Needless to say the Joyce Foundation has been throwing money at anybody willing to do research that shows a bias against guns so the findings in the linked article aren’t at all surprising.