Month: May 2012

Cops Handing Out Drugs

Last year a story on local CBS site brought my attention to the Drug Recognition Expert program being run by the federal government. It’s an interesting program that involves police officers actually giving illicit drugs to volunteers and studying their reactions:

Police can easily pull over and pick up drunk drivers. But pinpointing drivers on drugs is another story.

When an erratic driver doesn’t show any trace of alcohol on a breathalyzer, police need expert training to tell if they are high on something else. That’s why police recently requested a whole new set of recruits — drug users.

[…]

Officers from all over the state have come to Minneapolis’ Fifth Precinct for two weeks of intense training that will certify them as one of Minnesota’s Drug Recognition Experts.

“It’s not your typical police-subject interaction,” said Sgt. Don Marose of the Minnesota State Patrol, who trains officers for the state’s DRE program.

He said the program is nationally recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and has been in Minnesota since 1991. Marose said since then, 190 officers at 85 Minnesota agencies are drug-recognition trained officers at their departments.

Marose said when the State Patrol needed a real-life laboratory, the Minnesota Aids Project, Needle Exchange program, helped out.

The organization put out an ad to its clients, many who use drugs. It asked them to show up under the influence — and get rewards and incentives in return.

I didn’t look too much into it as I couldn’t really find much about it. Am I surprised the police are giving drugs to people? No. So why did I bother writing this post? Because it seems members of Minnesota’s finest are now recruiting OccupyMN potesters for this study:

A video report put together by local independent media activists and members of Communities United Against Police Brutality finds that police officers and county deputies have been giving drugs to young people hanging out near Peavey Plaza as part of an impairment study.

One officer who spoke to journalists said he never gave subjects drugs, but numerous young people who spoke on the record said police gave them marijuana, cigarettes, food, and other incentives as compensation for participating.

The report indicates that police patrol downtown Minneapolis looking for impaired people, then drive them to a testing facility in Richfield for examination of their capabilities while intoxicated. But in some cases where no previously impaired people could be found, police seduced prospective participants with drugs. The study has been ongoing since early last month.

Granted City Pages isn’t exactly a reputable source so I’m guessing much of this story is conjecture. With that said it’s interesting that police are patrolling OccupyMN looking for people who appear to be high on drugs. I also wouldn’t put it past the police to peddle drugs to individuals who already look under the influence but it’s pretty brazen. A few members of OccupyMN appear to believe the police are doing this to discredit the movement but I don’t think the police have to go to such lengths to discret the Occupy movement. Has anybody else heard of police going around recruiting apparently high individuals? I am under the assumption that police departments seek out volunteers for the Drug Recognition Expert program through advertising, not cruising around looking for people who are already under the influence.

Anyhow I don’t have anything substantial to report but if anybody has any information about this program I’d love to hear it. This has been a little back burner project of mine for a while but nothing really interesting ever crops up regarding the program.

Not Something I’d Expect to Encounter in Minnesota

There are a lot of different animals that I would expect to encounter here in Minnesota but alligators aren’t one of them:

A man walking his dog in Bloomington came across a 3.5 foot alligator.

According to Bloomington Police, the man says the reptile hissed at his dog as they were walking in an area known as Bass Ponds near 86th Street.

Wildlife officials aren’t sure how the animal got here and neither am I. I wonder what caliber would be best for taking on an angry reptile?

Butt Hurt Krugman

Paul Krugman is a little butt hurt after his debate with Ron Paul and has taken a little time to blog about it:

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?).

Notice that Krugman is complaining about the useless nature of face-to-face debates because it doesn’t give the debaters an opportunity to present data or perform fact checking. I’ve seen plenty of debates between people who have presented a great deal of data to back their claims and given citations for their sources so people can check what they’ve said afterwards but I’m going to give Krugman this point for one reason… he shoots himself in the foot.

First he complains about his inability to present data or verify facts presented by Ron Paul then he states what Ron Paul said about growth after World War II was false but doesn’t actually provide any proof of his statement. It’s a damned blog post Krugman, you have plenty of opportunity to make your argument and present your facts since you’re not under the pressure of an opposing debater. If you’re going to complain about face-to-face debates because they don’t give an opportunity to check facts then criticize the person you debated you should actually present some data that backs your statement. You have a platform to make your argument and you totally blow it.

If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

Actually, if you watch the debate, Ron Paul was a little more elegant than “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” Once again I will point out that Krugman has plenty of opportunity to backup his statement on his blog article but totally ignores it. I also like the fact that Krugman believes his supporters are different than Ron Paul’s supporters as far as reactionary positions are concerned. I guess Krugman loves a little conformational bias in his statements.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

I’ll give Krugman a point for honesty and admitting he just did the debate to publicize his book but take away points for failing to publicize his book. A debate would have been the perfect place to cite his new book for arguments. He could have said, “As I’ve written in my new book your statement about growth after World War II is false. You see…” and he could have presented his argument from there.

Krugman basically entered a debate to publicize his book, failed to publicize his book, failed to make any valid points during his discussion and then proceded to write a blog post about how pointless debates are without actually taking an opportunity to demonstrate his argument by presenting facts to backup his claims. I think this guy is the poster child for the meaningless nature of Nobel Prizes (which Krugman won one of in the field of economics).

The Fix is In

Everybody believes Romney is going to win the Republican nomination this year and I can’t disagree with that belief. Romney is the chosen candidate of the Republican Party and they want him to be the victor this election. What the media hasn’t been reporting is the fact that Ron Paul is running away with tons of delegates, news that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is taking note of:

The Republican National Committee is warning the Nevada GOP that if supporters of Ron Paul are allowed to take too many slots for the national convention, the party may opt against seating the state’s entire convention delegation.

[…]

The RNC is concerned that the Paul campaign will game the state-level convention this weekend that selects delegates to the national convention. While Mitt Romney should be awarded 20 of the state’s 28 delegates, based on his dominating win in the state’s primary, it’s possible that Paul supporters could exploit their strength in the Nevada GOP to get named to some of those delegate slots.

The national party is apparently concerned those delegates would then ignore party rules that would bind them to vote for Romney on the first round of balloting.

Did you get that? If Ron Paul ends up winning too many seats in Nevada the RNC may simply refuse to seat the entire state during the national convention. Their excuse that the Paul delegates may refuse to play by the rules is feeble at best. If that’s a concern the RNC should refuse to seat any delegates from states that were won by Santorum since their disgruntlement over losing their candidate may cause them to not play by the rules.

Either way the RNC has made an ultimatum, send Romney delegates or we’re not going to count your state. You know what? I hope Ron Paul wins Nevada and the RNC refuses to seat the state’s delegates at the national convention. As a Ron Paul supporter this may sounds like a weird thing to hope for but such an action would, more than anything else, demonstrate the irrelevance of member input in the Republican Party. It would show that the RNC doesn’t care what the members want and will go to any lengths to ensure the RNC favored candidates receive nominations. Perhaps such an action would finally wake enough members of the Republican Party up and cause them to leave. Obviously the completely brainwashed party supporters wouldn’t leave regardless but I don’t want everybody to leave, just enough to rip the Republican Party’s teeth out and possibly create a new viable party.

At this point I really want to see the Republican Party burn. I’m not a fan of hypocrites and the Republican Party are some of the biggest hypocrites of all. They promise small government, fiscal conservativeness, and free markets but deliver huge government, major debt spending, and heavily regulated markets. At least the Democratic Party is honest when they promise government programs, regulated markets, and forced association (which they like to call integration). The Republican Party promises good and deliver evil while the Democratic Party promises evil and actually delivers evil, one point to the Democratic Party for honesty.

Unfortunately people continue to feed the Republican Party because they believe it’s less evil than the Democratic Party. Guess what? It’s not. The Republican Party is willing to disqualify delegates if those delegates don’t deliver the desired result. Why doesn’t the RNC just admit to its dictatorial aspirations and start appointing a candidate without the delegate process? At least that would be honest.

They’re All the Same

Whenever somebody brings up the oncoming Romney vs. Obama race I’m always quick to voice my opinion that it’s really an Obama vs. Obama race. Romney and Obama are indistinguishable beyond physical characteristics. Saying this usually gets a rise out of both Romney and Obama supporters who believe their candidate is different from the other. Those who are asking gun owners to support Romney will point out that his election will slow down the race to socialism (which is really a race to fascism and the race was over decades ago) and strongly oppose my opinion that he’s the same as Obama. The sad truth is both candidates are exactly the same in the only matter that matters, they both believe in initiating violence.

My problem with these two candidates isn’t their views on guns, war, marriage, or the economy because their views on these issues are a symptom of something worse. What do all of these issues have in common? They all require the state’s gun to enforce.

Gun control laws are implemented under the threat of violence. If you purchase a verboten weapon the state will kidnap you and hold you in a cage. That’s what gun control is, that’s what every state decree is.

War is no different. Currently we have a voluntary military (until you’re in, at that point you become property of the state even more so than other citizens) but if the recruitment numbers aren’t high enough to wage the wars then the state will start another draft just as they did during the Vietnam War. Draftees will be offered the choice of being thrown in a cage or sent to war in a foreign land. The fact that the state can initiate a draft at all demonstrates the fact that we’re all slaves.

What about marriage? When the state makes a decree about marriage they’re violating peoples’ rights to voluntarily associate with one another. If the state choses to only recognize marriage between a single man and a single woman they are disallowing those who wish to marry people of the same sex or multiple people from entering into a contractual agreement. This is partially a byproduct of the state maintaining a monopoly on the court system and partially a byproduct of basing various government institutions on marriage status. Because of the monopoly on courts same sex partners can’t enter into the contractual part of marriage and because the state bases various institutions on marriage status same sex couples can’t apply for the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples. This is where the violence steps in, if a same sex couple decides to give the state the middle finger and pay their taxes as though they were married the Internal Revenue Service (revenuers) will bring down the hammer. The revenuers will demand more tax money and will go so far as kidnapping (or murder if the victims don’t come peacefully) and theft to get that money.

Economic matters are no different. When the state hands out money to favored businesses, generates regulations that harm their favoreds’ competitors, etc. they are brining the state’s gun to bear. A good example of this are regulations, most of which are designed in such a way to favor one set of businesses over another (usually the big politically well-connect businesses over the small guys who can’t afford lobbyists or offer cushy jobs to politicians when they exit their office). Environmental regulations are great for this as the book Political Environmentalism points out. During the acid rain scare the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that all coal burning power plants install SO2 scrubbers to prevent sulfur from being released in the atmosphere. This regulation favored large power companies who could afford to install scrubbers and coal mines in the western United States. How did this regulation favor western coal mines? Simple, coal from the eastern part of the United States is low on sulfur content and burning it actually releases little sulfur, less than burning high sulfur western coal through scrubbers does. How does violence play into the equation you ask? Try building a power plant without the EPA mandated scrubbers while burning low sulfer coal and you’ll find out pretty quickly.

The bottom line is both Romney and Obama want to continue regulating all of these things and many more. There is no real difference between the two. Both candidates want to control your life and that’s the problem, that’s why no difference exists between the two. Whether you put a gun to my head to control what guns I own or what I eat is irrelevant to me, the fact you put the gun to my head at all is why I’m pissed off.

Nailed It

As you know I don’t believe in democracy, an opinion that is often socially unacceptable to hold. I also believe that the United States is now nothing more than a fascist regime. Needless to say I’m just about a cynical as one man can get towards politics but I could never express this cynicism as well as Franke W. James has on his blog:

Contrast our country today with the one I grew up with in the 1950’s. We were taught to fear the Red Menace as personified by the Soviet Union and its one party Communist state with internal ‘passports’, border controls and mandated state issued identification card.

We enjoyed ‘Freedom’, while they did not.

But now I ask, have you tried recently to get an airline ticket or even ‘board’ an airliner without a “government issued identification card”?

Have you tried to rent a safety deposit box from a bank without a Social Security Number?

Do yourself a favor, click the link and read the post.

Florida Governor not Banning Firearms at the Republican National Convention

Some good news has come out of Florida, the state’s governor has decided not to heed the call of Tampa’s dictator so the area surrounding the Republican National Convention (RNC) will not be a gun-free zone:

Florida Governor Rick Scott has shot down a request by Tampa’s mayor to allow local authorities to ban guns from the city’s downtown during the Republican National Convention in August.

Citing Second Amendment protections in the U.S. Constitution, Scott told Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn that conventions and guns have co-existed since the nation’s birth and would continue to do so during the four-day event beginning August 27.

“It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law,” the Republican governor said in a letter on Tuesday.

Good on Rick Scott. If this RNC is anything like the RNC that took place four years ago in St. Paul there will be armed thugs marching down the streets smashing peoples’ property… and there will probably be other people besides those state agents present as well. Last election’s RNC was a fiasco and I know several people who were arrested, a handful more who were actually shot by fucking rubber shotgun rounds, and more yet that were pepper sprayed for the criminal act of nothing. I really don’t know how one would survive near the RNC without a firearm at their side.

I’m Sure He Deserved It

The war on drugs not approved by the state is one of the most vicious acts the state has taken. We have an almost unfathomable number of people rotting in prisons because they were found guilty of a decree (not a crime, a crime requires a victim). Worse yet, the state also finds it acceptable to punish the innocent:

The DEA left a student in a holding cell without food, water, or a bathroom for five days. Daniel Chong slept over at a friend’s house after celebrating April 20th, a day that marijuana users set aside to smoke pot. The DEA raided the house the next day and took him and eight others down to a local DEA office to answers questions. After he was told he was free to go, he was placed into a holding cell.

Chong screamed and pounded on the walls for help, but no one came to let him out, even after hearing people enter and exit the building. Since he was left without water, he was forced to drink his own urine and ate a white powdery substance found in his cell that turned out to be methamphetamine.

An innocent man locked in a cell for five days without food or water… but the jailers managed to toss some methamphetamine. What next, are they doing to charge him with using the meth? I wouldn’t put it past the state honestly. His kidnapping also lead to his attempted suicide:

After all of this, he tried to take his own life by breaking his own glasses, swallowing part of the glass and trying to carve his arms with the glass. When the agents finally discovered him, he was unresponsive and was sent to intensive care.

Yup, this is the war on drugs ladies and gentlemen. Your tax dollars are being used to bring violence against nonviolent individual.