Month: December 2011

More Militarization of Police Through Drone Usage

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.

Some Opinions Should be Kept to Yourself

The Letters to the Editor section of the Star Tribune is a source of near infinite entertainment for me. Seldom can I read through the section without finding at least two stupid letters penned by persons ignorant on the subject they’re expressing an opinion about. This is one of those letters:

The U.S. Post Office is vital to the economic and cultural health of our country and should not be treated as a for-profit business.

Actually the United States Post OFfice isn’t all that vital. With the exception of first class letter delivery, which the government maintains a monopoly on, the functions of the Post Office are also performed but numerous parcel deliver services including UPS, FedEx, and DHL. Our economy would suffer little, if any, were the Post Office shut down. Even most of the jobs lost by this move would likely be picked up by private parcel delivery services to cope with the additional surge of business that would have previously went to the Post Office.

It should be subsidized sufficiently so that closures or delayed deliveries are unnecessary. It is an honored and respected department of our government.

Emphasis mine. There isn’t a single department of our government that has one shred of honor not deserves any respect.

A history of the department shows it was responsible for keeping members of the Constitutional Convention informed on a daily basis no matter where they were.

Because of what the Post Office did way back when we should continue to subsidize it now? Should our government have subsidize the horse and buggy industry when Ford came in and stomped that market into practical extinction?

In furtherance of its charter, in 1848 the Post Office Department awarded a contract to the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. to carry mail to California. Under this contract, mail traveled by ship from New York to Panama, moved across Panama by rail, then went on to San Francisco by ship.

Emphasis mine once again. What one man called a contract I call a monopoly. Whenever government contracts with a company to provide a good or service that company receives a de facto monopoly in the government market. Because Pacific Mail Steamship Co. was granted the contract they received an increase in business that was denied to other potential shipping companies. Because of this large surge in business they would have gained more money and therefore would have been better positioned to buy out or otherwise eliminate their competition. It is never good news when the government grants a monopoly contract to a private firm for something.

It was supposed to take three to four weeks to receive a letter from the East, but this goal was seldom achieved. The Pony Express was very competitive in time, but the mail was limited to 20 pounds.

NEIL CLARK, MINNEAPOLIS

Do you know what other company was very competitive with the United States Post Office? Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company. Of coure the government didn’t have any control over that mail provider so they killed it through costly (to Spooner, not the government as they control the courts) court battles.

We need to face the fact that the United States Postal Service needs to be entirely privatized (not this stupid hybrid of private and public they currently suffer) and made to compete on the free market. Their monopoly on first class letter delivery needs to be revoked and they must be forced to innovate and improve their service just like UPS and FedEx.

Monday Metal: The Final Solution by Sabaton

This week’s Monday Metal entry is another song by the amazing power metal band Sabaton. I find this week’s song to be an incredibly emotional song, which is rare as I seldom have emotional reactions to music, as the lyrics deal with the Holocaust. The video contains photographs from Nazi concentration camps, which are quite disturbing so be advised. Either way it’s a great song that expresses the horrible toll inflicted upon those shipped to the Nazi concentration camps. I admit that this song is a rather depressing way to start off the week but I also believe a great injustice is served when we fail to remember the horrible toll inflicted upon our race by our race:

Equality Under the Law

Libertarians believe all should be equal in the eyes of the law. That is to say if you break a law all factors involving gender, race, and religion should be entirely ignored. While governments around the world claim to subscribe to this fact, in truth they rarely act on it because doing so would be politically incorrect, politically inconvenient, or would grant arguments for political opponents to use in the next election cycle. Those who have read my site long enough know I have no problem with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, atheism, or any other religion or lack thereof. Knowing this you should know that this story would still disgust me whether the attackers were Muslim, Christian, or atheist:

The four women – three sisters and their cousin – were told the charge of actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, against 22-year-old care worker Rhea Page would normally land them in custody.

However, the judge handed the women suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

Miss Page said Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur screamed “Kill the white slag” while kicking her in the head as she lay motionless on the ground.

The support worker from Leicester was left “black and blue” with bruises and needed hospital treatment following the attack which came as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend.

[…]

Sentencing, Judge Robert Brown said: “This was ugly and reflects very badly on all four of you. Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I’m going to suspend the sentence.”

[…]

He said: “Although Miss Page’s partner used violence, it doesn’t justify their behaviour.

“They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.”

It looks like you can get away with beating somebody to the point of hospitalization in the United Kingdom (UK) so long as you are of a religion that detests the consumption of alcohol and have consumed some alcohol. I hereby declare a new religion, of which I’m a follower, called Odinism. Odinism does not support the consumption of alcohol in any way, it views such acts as being damnable. Now if I ever want to get into a fight with somebody in the UK all I need to do is drink a beer or two before starting the fight.

I’m just glad I live in a country where I can legally have a means of defending myself against four assailants.

Government Delayed Warning About Chevrolet Volt Battery to Boost Sales

Anybody who understands the consequences of marrying government to business will not be surprised to learn this tidbit of information. Government General Motors is receiving some special treatment from the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA):

Yet, almost five months went by before either GM or the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) told dealers and customers about the potential risks and urged them to drain the battery pack as soon as possible after an accident.

Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the “fragility of Volt sales” up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA.

“NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert,” he said, according to industry website Autoguide.com.

They government withheld this warning to boost sales of the Volt. It wasn’t the “greedy capitalist corporation” that withheld this information, it was the government that people falsely believes represents the people. In other words your government withheld safety information to boost sales for a corporation under its care. I highly doubt NHTSA would do the same for Ford if it was discovered one of their new vehicles had a propensity of lighting ablaze after accidents.

Federal Government Censor Websites Using Copyright Laws

With all the debate surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) mission creep we often forget that the federal government has been practicing censorship by hijacking domains of websites. We’re told that SOPA will be OK because the government will only target copyright offenders but the truth is they’ve already used their authority to censor non-infringing websites:

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine’s offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company’s printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine’s lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that’s a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

But, in a story that’s been in the making for over a year, and which we’re exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year — with the only difference being that, rather than “a printing press” and a “magazine,” the story involved “a domain” and a “blog.”

[…]

Okay, now some details. First, remember Dajaz1.com? It was one of the sites seized over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend back in 2010 — a little over a year ago. Those seizures struck us as particularly interesting, because among the sites seized were a bunch of hip hop blogs, including a few that were highly ranked on Vibe’s list of the top hip hop blogs.

[…]

In fact, as the details came out, it became clear that ICE and the Justice Department were in way over their heads. ICE’s “investigation” was done by a technically inept recent college grad, who didn’t even seem to understand the basics of the technology. But it didn’t stop him from going to a judge and asking for a site to be completely censored with no due process.

The story goes into more detail but I’m sure you get the point. ICE has been shutting down domains based on “evidence” collected by completely unqualified individuals. Instead of laughing and tossing out requests for domain seizures judges have simply been saying, “Well I’m an agent of the state and you’re an agent of the state so you must be right. Sieze the domain!” This kind of ineptitude isn’t an exception but is the rule when it comes to government enforcement of almost anything.

Knowing this people still want to grant the government more power. What SOPA will do is allow this kind of incompetence to spread even further. I also guarantee you that many websites that are critical of the federal government will find themselves on the list of copyright offenders, by accident of course.

Donald Trump’s Debate Now a Small Circle Jerk

Will you look at this:

Two more Republican candidates — Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry — said thanks but no thanks to an invitation to participate in an Iowa debate managed by real estate mogul Donald Trump.

The Dec. 27 affair has now just two committed participants, one at the top of the GOP field and one distant aspirant, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, respectively.

The debate is now down to Trump, Santorum, and Gingrich. This debate should be the ultimate neo-con circle jerk filled with endless talk about how we need to bomb the sand people in the Middle East because they hate us for our freedom and such. Trump seems a little confused about the entire ordeal:

But he said he was surprised that Romney backed out. And as for Perry and others: “What do they have to lose?”

Their time and dignity? Let’s face it, if you’re running for presiden there are more productive ways to spend your time then talking to Trump. For example you could play a few rounds of solitarie or twiddle your thumbs. Either way with only those three at the debate it won’t be a debate but and echo chamber.

And to Think, Anti-Gunners Want to Prohibit People on the Terror Watch List from Owning Guns

From the horses fucking mouth:

POSITION: As a way to strengthen the Brady background check system, the Brady Campaign supports closing the Terror Gap.

PROBLEM: There is a gaping hole in our nation’s firearm laws that terrorists can exploit. Federal authorities can’t stop sales of guns – including military-style assault weapons – by federally licensed gun dealers to known or suspected terrorists because of gaps in current law. Our definitions of those prohibited from purchasing guns from federally licensed dealers do not include those known and suspected terrorists.

[…]

SOLUTION: Congress must pass the bill to close the Terror Gap to stop known or suspected terrorists from buying guns.

GET ACTIVE: Contact your Representative and Senators to urge them to support the Terror Gap bill.

I’ve been completely opposed to this because many innocent people appear on those lists. Now we’ve learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has been permitted to leave people acquitted of terrorist-related offenses on their lists:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is permitted to include people on the government’s terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped, according to newly released documents.

[…]

The 91 pages of newly disclosed files include a December 2010 guidance memorandum to F.B.I. field offices showing that even a not-guilty verdict may not always be enough to get someone off the list, if agents maintain they still have “reasonable suspicion” that the person might have ties to terrorism.

There you have it, if your name appears on the list and you’re later acquitted the FBI can simply leave your name on there so long as they have “reasonable suspicion.” This means, beyond any doubt, that what anti-gunners are advocating is the removal of people’s right to keep and bear arms even if those people are innocent of any crime.

You know what’s rather funny about this? I’ve been saying due process is dead in this country for a while now and am often called paranoid for it. This document proves without any doubt that due process is in fact dead in this country. Welcome to the United Police State of America.

By the way, in case this document gets removed I’ve uploaded a copy to my server, which can be accessed here [PDF].

Wasting Everybody’s Time

The Red Cross decided it would be a good idea to waste everybody’s time:

Earlier this year, game maker Activision counted up that 62 billion people had been ‘killed’ virtually in online games of Call of Duty: Black Ops – including 242 million stabbed to death at close range.

That’s just one title among hundreds of modern war games – most of which lack any kind of ‘surrender’ button bar switching the machine off.

Now, a committee of the Red Cross is debating if gamers might be violating the International Humanitarian Law as they slaughter each other online.

Way to put all that donated money to good use boys. Instead of using every available dime to help people in need the Red Cross decided it would be a great idea to create a committee to deterime if video game players, you know people partaking in an entirely fictional and therefore non-consequential universe, are violating the Geneva Convention.

I’ll save you guys a lot of debating, the answer is no. You can’t violate International Humanitarian Law if you’re not actually physically hurting people. That’s like claiming an author writing about the death of a main character is somehow equivalent to murder. Likewise what will be the ultimate extent of this debate? Will you idiots try to determine if firing a Clan extended range particle projector cannon from a 30 foot-tall BattleMech is a violation of the Geneva Convention? Let me save you some time on that future debate as well, the answer again is no because none of the Clans, nor the Inner Sphere, ever signed the Geneva Convention.

Pot Meet Kettle

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign may give me writing material for years to come. In her latest piece of hypocrisy she rants about carry permit holders wanting to have a legal means of defending themselves while on college campus. First I would like to point out that Joan is a fellow Minnesotan and therefore lives in a state that allows campus carry (a college can prohibit it if they choose, but such prohibitions only apply to students and faculty) and had zero incidents. Let the fun begin!

Then another VCDL member says that the “government should not be the enemy of honest people and that’s the situation we’ve got here.” Really? Is that the situation?

Yes. We’re talking about the same government who decided to run guns into Mexico to fabricate justification for additional gun control. It’s obvious that the government isn’t on the side of the law abiding so they are, by default, the enemy of honest people.

The fact that the Universities do not want loaded guns to be carried around on their campuses, as actually the majority of people agree about, does not make them the enemy of honest people.

First of all if the university is public what they want is irrelevant. I would also like to see a citation for your claim that a majority of people agree that guns shouldn’t be allowed on campus.

So anyone who wants to have reasonable gun laws is the enemy of honest people. How can you explain that with any facts behind the statement? Dishonesty in action.

Emphasis mine. It’s curious that a person who makes numerous claims not backed by any citations should demand facts from her opposition. Dishonesty indeed.

So the man who talked about sexual assaults on college campuses is right to bring up that problem. But what does it have to do with the gun debate? He didn’t say. He must be implying that women should shoot their attackers dead.

Actually Joan you shoot your attacker to stop them. That is to say if they when they cease their assault on your person you stop shooting. Anyways…

I’m not sure that’s the way to solve that problem and campuses have other programs in place to deal with sexual assault even though this guy is claiming that campuses are sweeping the problem under the rug. What proof does he have of that? Hyperbole in action.

If you’re sure that granting women the ability to defend themselves against an attack isn’t the way to solve the problem what is? You claim there are programs in place to deal with sexual assault but don’t mention what they are. What proof do you have that such programs exist? Hyperbole in action.

Because the University wants to keep guns off of its’ campus, it trusts criminals?

Again, what a public university wants it irrelevant.

Can you back that up with any facts or is that an emotional statement?

This coming from a woman who has made several claims without providing any facts.

I think he is implying that the people who don’t want guns on campus are saying that he and others like him are considered to be violent criminals because they want to carry their guns on campus. It’s the other way around.

It’s the other way around? Really? Please do explain.

The people who think students should have guns on campus seem to be thinking there is a violent criminal lurking in every shadow necessitating their need for a gun wherever they go.

What an insinuation. People who believe students should be allowed to legally carry guns on campus don’t believe a violent criminal is lurking around every corner, they simply realize the potential for violent criminals enter the campus and desire that students be given the option of having a means of self-defense. I don’t ensure the spare tire under my truck is inflated periodically because I think there are nails strewn across every street, I realize the potential that there may be a nail on the street and I want to ability to drive away if one of my tires in punctured.

Here’s another example of the gulf between the sides of the gun issue. Now that Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, many are critical of his views and his character. This one is coming from an unlikely source- the NRA- who makes claims about the Brady Law that are simply not true in order to criticize Gingrich.

[…]

Really? The Brady Law is a national gun registry? No it’s not.

Yes really:

Police suspect the siblings are carrying “an arsenal of weapons,” after tracing prior background checks run by gun sellers and confirming that Ryan bought an AK-47 assault rifle at a pawn shop two years ago. Authorities say the rifle is similar to the one used in the bank robbery. Similar checks also show Stanley owns guns.

While the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is required to destroy all data of approved Nation Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) within 24 hours I’m left to ask how they were able to determine somebody legally purchased an AK-47 two years after the purchase using a prior trace. Seems a bit suspicious to me. We lack any proof that the FBI actually complies with the data destruction laws so we’re left to simply guess.

And the Lautenberg amendment (keeping guns away from domestic abusers) means taking away gun rights for spanking your child? Not true.

I take it Joan has never witnessed a domestic abuse case. They’re based heavily on hearsay so in such a case it can be construed that a person did beat their child even though they merely spanked the child. If they get convicted on such charges they lose their right to keep and bear arms. While you can claim that the spirit of the Lautenberg Amendment was never meant to do that it is ultimately irrelevant because it can be used to do that.

And we disagree about a lot of things but it sure is hard to disagree about the fact that when guns are available in times of stress, sometimes people shoot others they love and even themselves. This story should be bold printed in every newspaper in the country.

So are we to assume that a single incident implies a trend? In that case:

A mother of two children says she shot her ex-husband in self-defense in the trailer they shared in Hayden, Ala. Authories in Blound County say Elsie Thomas shot Matt Allen with a small shotgun after he threatened her with a handgun. Sheriff Loyd Arrington told Fox 6 reporter Karen Church that he will not be pressing charges against Thomas at this time because he believes she acted in self-defense. See the attached video for the whole story.

Just saying.

We just got an appeal from our local food shelf and homeless shelter. Here is a quote: ” According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, families with children are the fasted growing population among the homeless. Children now make up 40% of the homeless population”. Don’t even get me started about this national disgrace. Actually gun deaths pale in comparison to what is happening to the poor and middle classes in this country. Shame on all of us for letting people starve, go homeless, or become so desperate that they think of shooting their families and themselves to avoid the suffering.

Wait… what? Let me rephrase what Joan just did, “OK people guns mean people under street are more likely to shoot their loved ones. Children are homeless!” If there is supposed to be an implied connection I’m not quite sure what it is.

It is possible to have honest discussions and honest disagreements based on facts.

I agree. Here’s mine [PDF], where are yours?

It must be said that I rarely read anything said about me on the gun blogs because it is so hateful.

So I guess this means you’re not willing to enter a debate with me? Shucks.

But the pro gun folks have come unglued by my last post for some reason.

Although you won’t read this I’ll statt it for the record, we didn’t like your last post because you lied numerous times in it.

I must be doing something right, though, when the undies of the gun guys are all in a bundle over the “ramblings” of a poor woman who is actually “insane”.

Actually, for me, it has more to do with the fact that you are a resident in the same state as me. That makes this a bit more entertaining but I digress. From here she jacks herself off (that may not be the right phrase but she has never provided proof that she’s a woman and we all know she’s big on requiring proof) about all the things she’s done in her life. Congratulations I guess. If you want a cookie or something just say so.

Obviously our world views are quite different from each other. But attacking those with whom you disagree with insults, derision and hateful language is immature and small to put it mildly.

Pot meet the kettle, it is also black.

I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be safe from being shot to death.

And I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite, and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be free of tyrannical government control.

Because I believe this is possible without carrying guns around on my person wherever I go or have an arsenal in case of a tyrannical government take-over, does not mean that I am desperate and despotic.

I agree, it merely means your naive.

Because I believe that common sense legislation can help prevent people from being shot does not mean I am delusional.

I submit, for consideration, that “common sense legislation” is an oxymoron.

One person wondered why there weren’t as many comments on my blog lately. You can see why. I just don’t publish this stuff for obvious reasons.

How do we know you’re not censoring opposing viewpoints? Where’s the proof that you’re all of the sudden such a fan of? Let me explain why there aren’t many comments on my blog, it’s because I don’t have millions of page hits a day. I’m perfectly OK with my mediocre, at best, numbers and have no need to make excuses for them.