Month: September 2011

Update on the Woman Shot in Golden Valley

Last week I posted a story about a woman who was shot dead by a Golden Valley police officer. Almost no information was made available at the time but the Red Star has an update that may explain what happened:

After Zarrett tried to pull her over, Gordon stopped her white Honda Civic next to the interstate median near the Hopkins Crossroad overpass. The source said that she immediately got out of her car and raised a small handgun in the direction of the officer, who was behind her car. Zarrett fired at her after seeing the gun, the source said.

If this is the case then the officer was likely justified in his actions. Due to the numerous cases of police brutality I’ve read about I am no longer one who generally sides with the police in these matters. But suffice to say if I were in a similar situation (a woman got out of a car and pulled a gun on me) I’d respond in kind by taking measures to preserve my life. We’ll have to see what comes of any potential court case (or maybe footage from a dash mounted camera will be released and clear this entire mess up) to know for certain what went down.

Big Brother in Minneapolis

An alternative title I was considering for this post was The Redistribution of Crime. The Minneapolis police department have started fielding temporary surveillance cameras which they claim will cause criminal activity to go elsewhere:

The portable cameras, more than the fixed ones, seem to make criminals take notice, he said.

“They behave similar to the way they behave if they saw a cop standing on the corner,” he said.

The combination of video and lights disperses unruly crowds quickly, he said. That helped during the University of Minnesota’s Spring Jam, and the cameras have been used at everything from the Uptown Art Fair to the Basilica Block Party and a festival at the LynLake neighborhood this summer, he said.

Note that no claims of preventing crime have been made regarding these mobile cameras. The intended goal appears to be move criminals from area to another area that isn’t currently covered by one of these portable cameras. Considering the astronomical cost of these units I would personally want a bit more than redistributing crime to different parts of the city:

“They’re awesome,” said Rugel, who keeps a board in his office that lists the locations of each of the portable cameras. Rugel said the city has had at least one unit since the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in 2007, but had purchased six more this spring. They cost about $29,000 apiece, according to city records.

At $29,000 a-fucking-piece these things should be able to apprehend criminals and make me breakfast in the morning. According to the Minneapolis website the salary for a new officer ranges between $45,539 and $50,207. The city currently owns seven of these $29,000 cameras costing them a total of $203,000. Had that money been spent to hire new officers the city of Minneapolis could have had four more hands on deck (obviously this excludes the cost of benefits but the cost of the cameras also excludes maintenance). I would argue that a trained police officer is going to be a far more effective tool then a camera. Whereas cameras can only record criminal acts police officers at least have a chance of stopping a crime and are far more useful in the traditional police duty of cleaning up after the criminal.

It should go without saying how Orwellian these cameras are. As the article states deploying surveillance cameras on public streets is perfectly legal. The important issue to note though is that a camera on public property can see what’s happening on private property. I’ll let Bruce Schneier explain the need for privacy and why you should be concerned about these mobile cameras being deployed on your street:

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

[…]

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that — either now or in the uncertain future — patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

Just because an activity is legal now doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. In addition to that it’s not unheard of for authorities to prosecute somebody for an activity they did before it became illegal. And even if one isn’t prosecuted for a previously legal but current illegal activity public ostracizing is a real threat. The concern about any surveillance isn’t so much the present but the future.

Personally if one of these cameras are ever deployed near my residence I will use my rather entertaining laser to blind the device while it looks towards my dwelling. While it may be legal for the police to deploy the camera on a public street I in no way consent to these devices looking into my domicile. If they don’t want the camera to be blinded then they can kindly point it elsewhere.

To the Opponents of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

We’ve heard quite a bit of pants shitting hysteria from anti-gunners about H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 but so far none have provided evidence of their claims. Continuing with my demands for citation and evidence from anti-gunners I hereby make a demand in regards to this bill.

The common claim by the anti-gunners is that states with strict requirements for obtaining carry permits will have to recognize permits from states with more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) requirements for obtaining carry permits. Here is my demand, show evidence that gun crime among permit holders residing in states with more liberal (classical definition again) permit regulations is higher than among permit holders residing in states with stricter permit regulations. Unless you can provide this evidence your entire argument is completely moot.

Some Good Old Pants Crapping Hysteria

Everywhere there are rights being restored, every place people are regaining their ability to properly defend themselves, there will be anti-gunners there to vomit out a stream of prophecy that has never come to fruition. Days of our Trailers points out another Joyce Foundation funded hysterical article written about Wisconsin’s new right-to-carry law:

No one knows exactly how many people will apply for permits, but it seems likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine that — hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed weapons. Is that supposed to make us feel safer?

Considering every state that has passed right-to-carry laws has seen no notable increase in violent crime and some have even seen a decrease, yeah I think it is supposed to make you feel safer. I can also easily imagine what a state with hundreds of thousands of people walking around carrying guns will be like; it’ll probably be just like my state where tens of thousands of people walk around carry guns. That is to say it’ll be just fine.

While concealed is radical change in Wisconsin, passage of the law was disappointing to many gun zealots, including Wisconsin Gun Owners and the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Pam Galloway.

Their extreme agenda calls for so-called “constitutional carry,” on the theory that the Constitution gives people the right to carry guns any time, any place, with no permits, background checks, or training required.

It’s not really a theory, the second amendment is pretty clear and if you ever spent time reading up on its history you’d know that. Of course you won’t spend time reading up on the history of the second amendment and thus will simply scream about it being related solely to well organized militias even if the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you (and they’re not exactly a bastion of freedom and rights).

Once the new law has been on the books for awhile, you can bet there will be attempts to amend it and eliminate the permit and training requirements.

Yes and if the permit and training requirements are eliminated Wisconsin will notice the same problems as other states that have no permit or training requirements… which is to say those states haven’t noticed any problems at all. Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming all have so-called constitutional carry laws and none of them have had any problems so far. Feel free to come back when any of these states start having problems due to their “loose” carry laws.

Will Wisconsin legislators be strong enough to resist the gun lobby, and the National Rifle Association over the long haul?

What he really meant to ask is if the Wisconsin legislators will be strong enough to resiste the people. Oh, wait he has a survey [PDF] that proves the people are against constitutional carry. Wait a minute this survey was done by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), another Joyce Foundation shill. I could no more trust this survey to accurately portray Wisconsin’s overall opinion on constitutional carry than anti-gunners could trust a survey funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

See the survey was performed by Third Eye Strategies whose website states the following:

A national public opinion research organization, Third Eye Strategies provides strategic guidance to elect Democratic candidates and to help nonprofit organizations advance progressive policies through Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiative campaigns.

Surveys are interesting tools as they can be crafted to get predetermined results. For example I could take a survey with completely neutral worded questions and get desired results by manipulating my sample. For example if I wanted a survey to reflect an overall displeasure with governor Scott Walker I would poll people walking around the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On the other hand if I wanted my survey to reflect an overall approval of Scott Walker I would likely perform the survey at a tea party rally. Seriously how can you trust an organization to be neutral when they have the following statement on their values page:

And most importantly, working for the election of Democratic candidates to local, state, and federal offices.

Getting Democratic candidates elected is their most important value, not providing correct data free of manipulation. Just stop to think about that and realize that anti-gun beliefs are much stronger with the progressive movement. Basically I’m saying that the survey linked in the main article is meaningless. Speaking of the main article lets continue with it:

In the current session, a so-called Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced with 25 Assembly sponsors and 15 Senators on board (although one of those Senators, Randy Hopper, is no longer with us, having lost a recall election last month.) Some call it a Shoot-to-Kill or Shoot First (ask questions later) bill, since it virtually gives a license to homeowners to kill anyone who breaks into their premises and who appears to be threatening them — even if that person is unarmed.

I’m at a total loss as to what is wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to a homeowner in a case where they took defensive measure against somebody broke into their home. The bill doesn’t grant immunity for murder, it simply states that somebody breaking into your home can be considered a clear and present danger. After all if an unknown person has bypassed my locked door and is moving about inside my home what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It’s pretty obvious that person isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.

We are getting closer and closer to the Six-Gun Law of the old West, where your friends did tote a gun.

Considering that the old West wasn’t all that violent [PDF] I’m not seeing a problem with this.

Once again an anti-gunner uses hysteria and hyperbole in a vain attempt to promote a failed ideology. Instead of advocating for the disarmament of law abiding people perhaps you guys would be more productive if you advocating for disarmament violent individuals. After all my gun isn’t a problem for anybody except those meaning to cause me or mine harm.

The EPA isn’t About Environmental Protection, it’s About Extortion

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of those agencies that are deemed absolutely critical by most environmentalists. These tree huggers claim that the environment would be totally destroyed by evil corporations if it wasn’t for the EPA stepping in and protecting our fragile planet. What most environmentalists never do is actually look at what the EPA does because if they did they would see that the EPA isn’t in the business of protecting the environment, they’re in the business of extortion. Case in point a couple purchased a piece of land and started construction on a home until the EPA stepped in and threatened the couple with absurdly high fines unless they paid a fee to ask permission to build on the land:

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That’s the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

See the couple made the mistake of buying an unassuming piece of land in a development that wasn’t located in any wetland registry. The EPA decided all of this was irrelevant and are treating the property as protected wetland:

The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.

[…]

Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if “you’re buying a piece of property you should know if it’s in wetlands.”

“I started to do research. I said, ‘So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]’? And she said, ‘Here’s the coordinates.’ When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it’s not there.”

Apparently you’re just supposed to know that a piece of land is protected even if it’s not listed in any registry of protected lands. If this piece of property is protected then the government should have noted as such by placing it in their registry. Remember how people say that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? How the fuck are you supposed to know you’re violating the law when there is no information available that would alert you to such?

Either way when you look a bit more into the story you’ll see that this move by the EPA has nothing to do with protecting a piece of wetland but instead it has everything to do with demanding the peasants pay their tribute to the ruling king:

So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can’t address a decision like this, as it’s an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the “compliance order” and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.

Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.

If the couple pays $250,000 for a permit I’m sure the EPA will suddenly see that it’s OK for the couple to build there. That’s usually how these government extortion schemes work. First the government waits for you to take an apparently legal action, then they step in and threaten you with fines for violating some obscure law, and finally they tell you if you pay them for a permit (which is always cheaper than the fines you’re facing) the entire mess will go away.

You know what the most sickening part about this story is? Tax dollars stolen from you and me are being used to steal even more money from other people.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t

As Jay will tell you Massachusetts is one messed up state. I’ve mentioned before that the state’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s OK to charge people to appeal a ticket and now they’ve ruled that it’s OK to charge somebody who successfully fought a ticket:

Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.

Emphasis mine. In the state of Massachusetts you can be punished for not even committing a crime. How fucking convenient is that for agents of the state? If the local police department is running low on money they can just write a bunch of tickets to everybody and collect money whether or not their victims are able to get the bogus tickets overthrown.

This precedence sets up a huge conflict of interest. What’s to stop police officers from issuing bogus tickets now? No matter what happens they win and get money out of the deal.

Freedom of Speech is Dead

Although most of my readers already know this I feel it necessary to state this for the record, the freedom of speech is dead. The freedom of speech has been under attack in this country for a very long time, going back at least as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Still the fact that somebody can be punished simply for having an unpopular belief is a bit disconcerting:

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

[…]

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

I’m sure somebody will say I’m anti-gay for writing this article but if you do a little browsing on this blog you’ll know that’s not true. It is my personal belief that all people should enjoy equal rights regardless of your race, religion, or sexual orientation. I also believe everybody has the right to their opinion and should be allowed to express it without fear of punishment. Vengeance shouldn’t be brought against somebody simply because they’re racist, bigoted, etc. While I reserve the right to call such people idiots they reserve the right to call me one and so long as nobody initiates violence it’s all good.

The fact that this kid was given three days of suspension is disgusting. What kind of message do you think that sends the kid? If the teacher was disgusted by the child’s belief maybe he should have had a discussion about it with the kid or the entire class. Punishing somebody for disagreeing with you only generates resentment and will likely strengthen their belief. Reason is the most effective tool for promoting logical ideas. Had the teacher used reasoning to express why he believed the child’s belief to be wrong perhaps he could have helped the kid understand that homosexuality isn’t wrong as it harms nobody.

Instead the teacher went all authoritarian on the child and likely generated resentment which will strengthen the child’s belief that homosexuality is wrong.

A Message From the FDA to Asthma Sufferers

This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a powerful message to asthma sufferers, you can all go fuck yourselves and pay three times as much for the inhalers you need to breath. Oh and if you want to continue breathing you’re going to need a prescription:

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government’s latest attempt to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

See those over-the-counter inhalers use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which have been linked with the hole in the ozone layer. Due to this over-the-counter inhalers are being banned because the ozone layer is far more important than your breathing… even though it has been recovering in spite of these Earth killing inhalers. But let us not get tied up in logic here, we need to enrich the pharmaceutical companies who charge three times as much for prescription inhalers than current over-the-counter inhalers:

But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.

Perhaps I’m just being cynical. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that cheap over-the-counter inhalers are being banned for a completely unnecessary reason and the only legal alternatives cost up to three times as much.

Announcing the Next President of Russia

Not surprising anybody, former Russian president and current prime minister Vladimir Putin has announced that he’ll be running for a chance to be the next president of Russia:

Addressing the ruling United Russia party’s annual congress, Mr Putin and current President Dmitry Medvedev backed one another to switch roles.

The announcements end speculation over which man should run for the top job.

I will give the Russian government credit on one thing, they don’t even try to hide the rampent corruption flowing within its veins. While our government in the United States spends a lot of time trying to appear magnanimous and promote the myth that anybody can achieve a position within the government palaces of power, the Russian government all but outright states there is a de facto monarchy.