Month: June 2012

Those Canadians Sure Learn Fast

I have to hand it to the Canadian government, they are picking up the whole police state thing very quickly:

OTTAWA – Airports and border crossings across Canada are being wired with high-definition cameras and microphones that can eavesdrop on travellers’ conversations, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.

A CBSA statement said that audio-video monitoring and recording is already in place at unidentified CBSA sites at airports and border points of entry as part of an effort to enhance “border integrity, infrastructure and asset security and health and safety.”

As part of the work, the agency is introducing audio-monitoring equipment as well.

“It is important to note that even though audio technology is installed, no audio is recorded at this time. It will become functional at a later date,” CBSA spokesman Chris Kealey said in a written statement.

But whenever that occurs, the technology, “will record conversations,” the agency said in a separate statement in response to questions from the Ottawa Citizen.

At one point in time it appeared as if Canada were our polite neighbors to the north. As time rolls by it is become more apparent that the Canadian government has become jealous of the American police state and are trying to catch up as soon as possible. Perhaps we’ll soon have a police state race between the United States and Canada.

To my Canadian readers, pay attention to the draconian measures being implemented by the United States. While it may seem impossible that your government could ever sink to the level of assassinating Canadian citizens, spying on the citizenry with unmanned drones, and creating false flag operations like Fast and Furious to implement stricter gun control it’ll come in due time. What’s happening in the United States now is what you have to look forward to in a few years.

Everything is Illegal

I haven’t reported on the Funnyjunk vs. The Oatmeal Internet battle because battles involving websites usually isn’t that interesting to me. That changed with the publishing of this story. Matt Inman, the man behind The Oatmeal, accused Funnyjunk of stealing material. In response Charles Carreon, Funnyjunk’s asshole (I’ll get to that in a bit) lawyer, demanded The Oatmeal pay $20,000 to compensate his client for defamation. Inman managed to raise $140,000 by crowd sourcing for funds then gave Carreon the middle finger and donated the wad of cash to charity. Now Carreon is butt hurt and apparently doesn’t understand the law:

In his 20 years as a lawyer, he says, he’s written hundreds of letters like the one he sent Inman, but the response to this one was unique.

“So someone takes one of my letters and takes it apart. That doesn’t mean you can just declare netwar, that doesn’t mean you can encourage people to hack my website, to brute force my WordPress installation so I have to change my password. You can’t encourage people to violate my trademark and violate my twitter name and associate me with incompetence with stupidity, and douchebaggery,” he says. “And if that’s where the world is going I will fight with every ounce of force in this 5’11 180 pound frame against it. I’ve got the energy, and I’ve got the time.”

The simply act of calling somebody out as being a douche bag doesn’t qualify as encouraging people to hack a website. Inman never said, “Everybody, go hack Carreon’s site, bring the site to its knees!” He merely told his readers what was happening and asked for money to help. The individuals who hacked Carreon’s site did that of their own accord. As I’ve said before, the Internet has defensive capabilities. When you act like a jackass (as far as Internet culture goes) you can guarantee a very harsh response. It’s almost automated, nobody has to encourage the behavior, in fact there is no way one can even insinuate Inman encouraged such behavior… wait, what:

He may have a very difficult time proving that Inman “instigated attacks,” as he said on his website, but he’s certain he can find some legal recourse for what’s going on right now – “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this,” he says.

Emphasis mine. Wow… that’s pretty ballsy for an attorney to say. He basically said, “I know that everything is illegal, I just need to find an obscure law that has been long forgotten and was never meant to be used in this context then I’ll have Inman by the balls.” It’s the lawyer equivalent of admitting to wanting to hurt somebody just to hurt them.

Carreon’s statement demonstrates much of what is wrong with our so-called justice system. There are so many laws on the books that everything is illegal. Even if Carreon can’t get a charge to stick he can attempt to use a strategy favored by losing lawyers, keep the litigation process going until the opposition is bankrupted. We can only hope that Carreon’s statement can be used as evidence to dismiss any case he brings against Inman, although the chances of that happening in California are even slimmer than most places.

The Failure of Centralizing Power

I live in a country where power is becoming increasingly centralized. More and more decisions are being made on the federal level while fewer and allowed to be made at the state, county, city, and individual level. The banning of gay marriage in North Carolina demonstrates the flaw with centralized power quite effectively:

Earlier this month, Amendment 1 — an amendment to the North Carolina state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage, among various other kinds of domestic partnership — was passed by voters. Much has already been made of the bill’s discriminatory content, the former need to “vote against,” and the current need for repeal, but much of this looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.

In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather that we live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of collective decision making in the first place.

One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that the state — as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of business, or any other pool of people — is the appropriate unit for collective decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common denominator fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another’s opinions, interests, and backgrounds — complex, diverse, and contradictory though they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties to decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as well. And it denies a man — or two, or several — the opportunity to lead his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.

The larger the collective decision making group is the worse things get. Most countries define decision making groups on arbitrary borders. In the United States decisions made on a federal level affect over 300 million individuals. Decisions made on a state level in Minnesota affect 5 million people. Any decision made by the city of Minneapolis affects almost 400,000 people. To many this doesn’t seem like a bad thing, after all they wish to push their morals onto as many people as possible. There are many religious individuals who would love to pass a law that established their religion as the state religion on a federal level. They don’t care about the, likely, hundreds of millions of individuals who don’t share their religious beliefs.

Collective decision making fails due to the fact human beings are not insects, as much as the collectivists wish we were. There is no human hive, individuals do not mindlessly follow the orders of a queen be. We are each rational beings capable of making decisions independent of one another. As a group of individuals becomes larger the chances of successful collective decision making decreases.

It is the epitome of arrogance to believe you know what is best for another individual. That arrogance doesn’t go away simply because an arbitrary number of people agree with one another. Every person who voted on Amendment 1 in North Carolina was saying, “I know what’s best for everybody in this state.” When somebody advocates for collectivist philosophies they are saying the previously mentioned arrogance goes away when decisions are made by groups. If the group decides to ban gay marriage then it must obviously be the correct decision, right? No, in fact making an argument on such grounds is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.

The United States needs to wrestle power from the federal government and return it to the hands of the individual states. Once the individual states have the ability to make decisions that power must be wrestled away from them and returned to the counties. This process needs to continue until decision making power is put into the hands of individuals.

Guilty Until Proven… Never Mind, You’re Just Guilty

EDIT: 2012-06-19 07:00: Bikerdad pointed out that these people have been charged and are being held by the federal government. My confusion can be partially blamed on writing the story in the wee hours of the night and partially blamed on the story being downright confusing (mostly the former though).

The root cause of this problem regards the definition of who can and can’t have a firearm. According to the story:

Decades ago, Congress made it a federal crime for convicted felons to have a gun. The law proved to be a powerful tool for police and prosecutors to target repeat offenders who managed to escape stiff punishment in state courts. In some cases, federal courts can put people in prison for significantly longer for merely possessing a gun than state courts can for using the gun to shoot at someone.

To make that law work in every state, Congress wrote one national definition of who cannot own a gun: someone who has been convicted of a crime serious enough that he or she could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison.

Combine this definition with North Carolina’s rather interesting method of determining a person’s sentence:

Figuring out who fits that definition in North Carolina is not as simple as it sounds. In 1993, state lawmakers adopted a unique system called “structured sentencing” that changes the maximum prison term for a crime, based on the record of the person who committed it. People with relatively short criminal records who commit crimes such as distributing cocaine and writing bad checks face no more than a few months in jail; people with more extensive records face much longer sentences.

Finally combine the above two facts with a ruling that changed the laws:

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said federal courts (including itself) had been getting the law wrong. Only people who could have actually faced more than a year in prison for their crimes qualify as felons under federal law.

The 4th Circuit’s decision came in a little-noticed drug case, United States v. Simmons, but its implications could be dramatic. For one thing, tens of thousands of people in North Carolina have criminal records that no longer make having a gun a federal crime. About half of the felony convictions in North Carolina’s state courts over the past decade were for offenses that no longer count as felonies under federal law.

Needless to say the so-called justice system in the United States is convoluted. The above scenario makes things confusing already but then you combine the fact that cases often get handed over to different courts and you have for some fun times:

Police checked the guns’ serial numbers and learned the shotgun had been reported stolen, so they arrested McCullum. (They didn’t realize until later that the gun had been stolen nine years earlier, by someone else, when McCullum was 12.) When they found out McCullum had a criminal record, they charged him with possession of a firearm by a felon, and turned the case over to the federal government.

What’s interesting is the implications of this mess. There are currently people being held in federal prison who are not actually guilty of federal crime, except they are, unless they’re not. We do know that the federal government “believe innocence is a valid case to release prisoners so those sitting in federal prison will likely be there for a while longer. Looking at this case from the current angle I have to ask where North Carolina is. Isn’t one of the duties of an individual state government to protect its people? Why isn’t the government of North Carolina up in arms over this? Shouldn’t they be making legal proceedings to get their people out? Should they not be readying themselves to storm the federal prison complex to free their people?

Like the federal government, the individual state governments don’t care about the people. Nothing is likely to change for those currently being held illegally in federal prisons. The federal government doesn’t believe innocence is a valid reason to free a prisoner and the individual state governments long ago became subservient to the federal government. We shouldn’t be surprised by this as it is the only logical result of having one entity with monopoly control over both law enforcement and the courts. There is a conflict of interest that results in the people being shafted.

I have left the post I originally wrote below for historical purposes and because I like to keep demonstrations of my failures around to remind myself to do better. Have fun reading:

Here’s another story sent in by Zerg539 via Twitter. Like the last one he sent in this one isn’t going to do well for those with heart conditions but it appears as though North Carolina has decided to completely do away with the idea of innocence:

A USA TODAY investigation, based on court records and interviews with government officials and attorneys, found more than 60 men who went to prison for violating federal gun possession laws, even though courts have since determined that it was not a federal crime for them to have a gun.

Many of them don’t even know they’re innocent.

The legal issues underlying their situation are complicated, and are unique to North Carolina. But the bottom line is that each of them went to prison for breaking a law that makes it a federal crime for convicted felons to possess a gun. The problem is that none of them had criminal records serious enough to make them felons under federal law.

North Carolina is throwing people in prison for lawful behavior. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody since such behavior is typical for a state. What really adds to this story though is that the federal government, who often claim their duty is to swoop in and protect people from the individual state governments, has decided this battle isn’t one they should be involved in:

Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime. And although they have agreed in court filings that the men are innocent, they said they must still comply with federal laws that put strict limits on when and how people can challenge their convictions in court.

“We can’t be outcome driven,” said Anne Tompkins, the U.S. attorney in Charlotte. “We’ve got to make sure we follow the law, and people should want us to do that.” She said her office is “looking diligently for ways, within the confines of the law, to recommend relief for defendants who are legally innocent.”

When it appears that George Zimmerman’s motivation for shooting Trayvon Martin were race-related the federal government swooped right in. They were investigating the local government because they felt racism may have been the reason Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. It appears as though the federal government is very selective in what they will oversea regarding potential abuses by local governments though since innocent individuals in North Carolina are currently being held illegally and no help is going to be forthcoming.

I’ve said it numerous times but it bears repeating, this country is a police state. When innocence of a crime isn’t enough to set you free then there is no law and order. Granted, the federal government has openly stated before that “Federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction“. Basically, once you’re in the prison system, you’re fucked. You’re not innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, you’re simply guilty.

What Kings Do

I’ll be honest, I don’t care about illegal immigration. As far as I’m concerned illegal immigration in this country started when the Europeans floated over the Atlantic Ocean and took this land from the Native Americans by force. To concern ourselves over illegal immigration today is a bit hypocritical.

Judging from the reactions I’ve been reading elsewhere I’m in the minority, at least on sites I read normally. There’s nothing unusual about that but I do find it rather funny how many people are suddenly up in arms over the fact Obama just changed immigration police using an executive order:

Appearing in the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama announced Friday that, effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spent at least five continuous years here would be allowed to stay and apply for work permits if they had no criminal history and met other criteria, such as graduating from high school or serving honorably in the military.

By acting unilaterally, through an executive order, Obama underscored one of the great strengths of presidential incumbency: the ability to change the campaign conversation in an instant. In the time it took for word to leak in Washington, Obama’s move shunted aside a not-terribly-well-reviewed speech on the economy he had delivered in Ohio a day earlier.

How anybody can be surprised or shocked by the king’s latest move is beyond me. Obama has been using executive orders to bypass Congress for a while and has actually been the first president to blatently brag about having such power:

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Earlier this year Obama went so far as to, basically, collectivize this country’s resources through an executive order and granted state officials the power to invoke sanctions against countries that use technological means to violate human rights (with no apparent acknowledgement of the irony involved in such an order).

Some people are pointed to this most recent executive order as proof that Obama believes himself to be a king and are calling on Congress to push back. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but Congress isn’t going to push back. In fact Mitt Romney isn’t even will to say he’ll repeal the order. Moving against Obama’s latest executive order would be political suicide this close to the election. Once again we see that the only difference between the monarchy in many European countries and the presidency in this country is that one claims their position by divine right while the other claims their position through the peoples’ vote.

Even though I don’t care much about the illegal immigration debate I will say this maneuver by Obama has apparently woken a few up about the powers a president actually enjoys in this country. That’s good, people need to pull their heads out of the sand and stop pretended there is any separation of power in the United States government. All three branches are in collusion to bring the statist agenda upon us.

The Karl Marx Credit Card

No, the title of this post isn’t some clever snarky jab at the credit card industry, there actually is a Karl Marx credit card:

The German bank Sparkasse Chemnitz recently launched a Karl Marx credit card. The bank let people vote online for 10 different images, and Marx was the “very clear winner,” beating out a palace, a castle and a racetrack, among others. Reuters has more on the story.

A more fitting image could not have been found. Karl Marx advocated central banks that could control currencies, he opposed money, and one of his tag lines was “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

What is a credit card? It’s basically a plastic card that allows you to use non-existent money to purchase things you can’t normally afford. It’s certainly not money, even by fiat standards, because no assumption is made that the person using the card will actually be able to pay off the bill at the end of the month. Truly credit cards embody the concept of “each according to his need” since need really is a subjective term when discussing economics that is more accurately referred to as want. Those unable to afford an expensive plasma television need to worry, they can merely put it on the credit card and later file bankruptcy against the debt. Each can have want they want.

I’m glad to see Karl Marx has finally been honored in a way befitting of his philosophy. The credit card is the perfect example of socialist economics and there is no better way to honor one of the best known socialist philosophers than putting his image it.

Monday Metal: Merciless Times by Myrath

This week I have some a little different, a metal band from Tunisia. While listening to this is likely to get you added to a terrorist watch list it’s worth it, they have a unique sound that is distinctly metal but also, what I would describe as, traditionally Middle Eastern sounding (Middle Eastern folk metal perhaps). It’s too bad Obama is probably going to drone this band because I’m quite enjoying their music:

Thor’s Wrath

So we just had a thunderstorm roll through that appeared to be nothing less than Thor bringing his hammer down upon the Twin Cities. In the end it ended up being mostly a great light show, at least for the region I live in, but I can certainly understand how so many ancient cultures worshiped various thunder gods. Thunderstorms are impressive and contain great deals of power. It’s not surprising that gods associated with thunderstorms are also popular subjects of awesome metal songs such as Thor by Rebellion:

And Twilight of the Thunder God by Amon Amarth:

OK, I admit it, I was just looking for an excuse to post some awesome metal to go with this storm.

Another Clever Case of Using the State’s Tools Against It

Via The Firearm Blog I came across another example of a clever individual using one of the state’s tools against it. Various police states claim that gun buyback programs get illegal guns off of the street and therefore reduce crime. These programs don’t reduce crime and exist solely to use taxpayer money to sucker individuals into selling firearms for less then they’re worth. A clever individual has found a way to get some of his taxpayer money back from the demonstrable irresponsible state:

Many works from the show conflated fashion and violence, as with HG (Hermés Hand Grenade) (1995) and Tiffany Glock (Model 19) (1995), both of which were models made with Hermes or Tiffany packaging.

Although these sculptures were non-functional, another piece – Hecho in Switzerland (1995) – was an actual working homemade gun. Sachs and his assistants would make similar guns and sell them back to the city as part of New York’s gun buyback program (for up to $300 each).

That’s rather brilliant. You can build a nonfunctional although convincing zip gun for almost nothing and then turn it into a gun buyback program for decent profit. Since the buyback programs don’t actually lower crime it would be wholly irresponsible to let the police continue sinking money into them, it would be doing the community a service to take that money from the unproductive wasters and distribute it to the productive providers of goods and services in the community.

It’s Like Watching Children Argue

What do you get when you get to individuals who are entirely oblivious to economics arguing about economics? A presidential debate:

Taking the stage near Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Mr Obama pitted his economic plan against Mr Romney’s “top-down” vision, saying Mr Romney would lead the economy down the path it had taken for the last 10 years.

Mr Obama said his vision of the economy saw growth coming from the middle class and that voters had “two very different visions to choose from”.

You know how you can tell when a presidential candidate is clueless about economics? When they talk about how the president can fix the economy. The president has as much ability to fix the economy as I do… scratch that, I actually have enough knowledge to advise people on economic issues with some competency (not much mind you, but more than either Obama or Romney).

Raising taxes isn’t going to fix the economy. Giving tax incentives isn’t going to fix the economy. Increasing regulations isn’t going to fix the economy. Reducing regulations isn’t going to fix the economy. There are only two ways to fix our economic woes, either the state must remove itself entirely from economic issues (I’ll see a leprechaun riding a unicorn before that happens) of the economy removes itself entirely from the state (this would be known as agorism).

The United States and most of Europe are learning the same lesson the Soviet Union did no so long ago, centrally planned economies fail. A centrally planned economy cannot work because it’s impossible to plan for the wants of other individuals. I cannot know what you want and you cannot know what I want, we must be allowed to employ our own means to obtain our own ends. This is what neither Romney or Obama understand, they both think the economy must be “helped” by the state.