Month: July 2012

I Guess I’ll Never Be Allowed to Fly British Airways

It appears as though I’ll never be allowed to fly British Airways:

In an airline industry first, British Airways’ Know Me program uses Google images to ID its best customers even before they set foot in the airport. The airline has equipped its customer service agents and senior cabin crew with iPads so they can easily tap into and share information about customers, including their preferences, flight history and yes, photos.

While British Airways says the program, which launched earlier this month, helps “put a face to the name,” it’s got some people asking whether the airline is going the extra mile or just acting downright creepy.

If they Google me they’ll find this site and if they read this site they’ll known I’m an anarchist and a gun owner, neither of which are generally viewed in a positive light by airline services. Oh well, I wasn’t planning on flying British Airways anytime soon.

The Return of the Red Scare

The United States has a long history of fearing the reds. From 1919 to 1920 there was a fear that the Bolsheviks would do to the United States what they did to Russia. McCarthy was absolutely convinced that communists had infiltrated the United States government and lead the second red scare from 1947 to 1957 (he turned out to be right). It seems that Michelle Bachmann is following in the tracks of her predecessors and trying to stir up fear of another group, muslims:

The flap began after Bachmann and Republican colleagues Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, Florida Rep. Tom Rooney and Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland sent letters to several inspector generals in the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Office of National Intelligence as to whether the Muslim Brotherhood could be infiltrating the U.S. government. The letters quickly attracted attention with one specifically mentioning the State Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, a long-time Hillary Clinton aide, by name.

Bachmann’s letter says “Huma Abedin has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother-conected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives or organizations.

Statism is a funny beast because it attracts everybody who wants to force their beliefs onto others. Communists managed to infiltrate the United States government in the hopes of forcing communism on the populace. Bachmann has used the state in an attempt to force his zealous Christian beliefs onto the population and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are muslims doing the same thing with their religion.

It amuses me to see so many people fight one another to gain control of the state apparatus.

What’s Illegal for Us is Legal for Them

Although it’s illegal for mere peasants to impersonate police officers it’s now legal for police officers to impersonate you:

In November 2009, police officers in the state of Washington seized an iPhone belonging to suspected drug dealer Daniel Lee. While the phone was in police custody, a man named Shawn Hinton sent a text message to the device, reading, “Hey whats up dogg can you call me i need to talk to you.” Suspecting that Hinton was looking to buy drugs from Lee, Detective Kevin Sawyer replied to the message, posing as Lee. With a series of text messages, he arranged to meet Hinton in the parking lot of a local grocery store—where Hinton was arrested and charged with attempted possession of heroin.

[…]

But can cops legally do this with seized cell phones? When their cases went to trial, Hinton and Roden both argued that Sawyer had violated their privacy rights by intercepting, without a warrant, private communications intended for Lee.

But in a pair of decisions, one of which was recently covered by Forbes, a Washington state appeals court disagreed. If the decisions, penned by Judge Joel Penoyar and supported by one of his colleagues, are upheld on appeal, they could have far-reaching implications for cell phone privacy.

The problem with statism is that it inherently has two sets of laws, a private set that individuals must follow and a public set that apply to the state itself. This always ends with the state, under their separate system of law, being able to do things individuals cannot. For example, an individual who impersonates a police officer will likely land in prison whereas a police officer who impersonates an individual will be congratulated on a job well done. If somebody owes you a debt and you kidnap them and lock them in your basement you’ll be charged with kidnapping, if the police kidnap you and lock you in a cage for not paying taxes they’re again congratulated on a job well done.

Having two systems of law ultimate means one group, namely the state as they are the ones allowed to make the laws in both systems, gains advantage over the other. Behavior that would land an individual in jail, say robbery or murder, are legal for the state to perform.

What’s worse is that the state is granted a monopoly on deciding both sets of laws. Generally this means the state will grant itself immense power and restrict the liberty of individuals. When an individual opposes one of the state’s claimed powers they make their case in front of a state controlled court, which often rules on the side of the state. Liberty cannot exist so long as multiple sets of rules exist. In order for true liberty to exist everybody must play by the same set of rules.

Sometimes Doing the Right Thing Doesn’t Involve Punishment Afterward

It isn’t always the case that no good deed goes unpunished, sometimes people get away with doing the right thing:

The 71-year-old Florida man who fired his gun at two men trying to rob a crowded Internet café will not face criminal charges, an assistant state attorney general told FoxNews.com

Bill Gladson, the attorney, said he reviewed the security video from the Palms Internet café in central Florida.

The video shows patron Samuel Williams pulling a handgun and shooting. He continues firing while the suspects fall over each other as they run out the door.

Gladson said in the memo Williams’ use of force was lawful under Florida’s statutes regarding individuals rights to use deadly force when resisting a forcible felony, like a robbery.

Although a rare sight, it’s nice to see the justice system actually deliver justice. There is no reason that a man should face punishment for firing on armed aggressors. Some people have pointed out that one of the suspects claimed his firearm was nonfunctional:

‘The gun was broken and rusty and wasn’t loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt,’ he told the paper; the plan was to ‘barge in, get the money and leave.’

He said that neither of the two teens ever ‘expected anyone to be armed.’

Just as the teens didn’t expect anybody to be armed the man who fired on them didn’t expect their guns to be nonfunctional. When you initiate force you can’t expect to blame anybody who defends themselves because you didn’t really mean it. It should surprise nobody that a negative correlation exists between the number of lawful armed individuals and violent crime. The teens in this story admitted that they didn’t expect anybody to be armed, they thought the risk of robbing the Internet cafe was very low compared to the potential reward. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for everybody else, the teens’ risk assessment was wrong and they met armed resistance.

As the number of armed individuals increases the risk of aggressing also increases. Since every action is a risk/reward assessment increasing the number of armed individuals can effectively lower violent crime, since the risk of being hurt or killed while perpetuating a violent crime becomes too high.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

My feeling about voting for Romney or Obama can be summed up by paraphrasing Snake Plissken, “I vote for Mitt Romney, you win they lose. I vote for Barack Obama, they win, you lose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

For those of use confused about my unwillingness to support Romney in “The most important election of our lifetime!” (that isn’t) let me just say that Romney’s victory merely means you win, they lose. On the other hand if Obama wins it merely means they win, you lose. I’m not a member of either team, I have no interest in either presidential candidate winning. Regardless who wins I lose.

Protester Who Stripped at Airport Security Found Not Guilty

It’s nice to know that there are a few judges left in the United States that aren’t upholding the statist agenda:

An Oregon man who stripped nude at Portland’s airport security to protest what he saw as invasive measures was found not guilty of indecent exposure.

Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge David Rees ruled Wednesday that John Brennan’s act was one of protest and therefore, protected speech.

[…]

When he reached the gate, he declined to go through the airport’s body scanners, instead choosing the alternative metal detector and body pat-down. After the pat-down, Transportation Security Administration officer Steven Van Gordon detected nitrates on the gloves he used to check Brennan.

“For me, time slowed down,” Brennan said. “I thought about nitrates and I thought about the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Brennan said before his trial that after months of angst every time he went through security, the nitrate detection was the final straw for him, a wordless accusation that he was a terrorist.

So he took off all his clothes.

Good on the judge and good on Brennan. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) thugs like to flaunt their power by embarrassing air travelers so it’s only right that air travelers do everything in their power to embarras TSA thugs. Hopefully this ruling will lead to more such incidents. I’d love nothing more than to see airport security checkpoints turn into scenes of chaos as air travelers rebel against being irradiated, sexually molested, and treated like a terrorist suspect.

Another Lawsuit Over Drone Killing Filed

It’s nice to see everybody isn’t kowtowing the United States government. Anwar al-Awlaki and his son may very well have been evil men but they were American citizens and were murdered by the United States government without receiving their constitutionally guaranteed right to trial. Last year Charlie Savage and The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DoJ) because they were unwilling to release the memo that ordered the execution of Anwar and his son. Now al-Awlaki’s relatives are filing a lawsuit against senior national security officials:

Relatives of three American citizens killed in drone strikes in Yemen last year filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against four senior national security officials on Wednesday. The suit, in the Federal District Court here, opened a new chapter in the legal wrangling over the Obama administration’s use of drones in pursuit of terrorism suspects away from traditional “hot” battlefields like Afghanistan.

The first strike, on Sept. 30, killed a group of people including Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico, and Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who lived at times in Queens, Long Island and North Carolina. The second, on Oct. 14, killed a group of people including Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

“The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law,” the complaint says.

Press officials with the C.I.A., the Pentagon and the Justice Department declined to comment.

I didn’t realize there were three American citizens murdered by the United States government, I was only aware of Anwar al-Awalki and his son, this story just keeps getting worse. The federal government used to claim non-citizens weren’t afforded the same rights as citizens to justify blatantly ignoring due process. Now they don’t even pretend citizens have any right of due process, if you’re a thorn in the state’s side you’re execution is ordered. Murdering American citizens, the people that the federal government is sworn to protect, without so much as due process is the single scariest thing the Obama administration has done. Even Bush, the tyrant that he was, tried to pretend the federal government was in the business of protecting American citizens.

Unarmed Teenagers

When the Zimmerman case first came to light many people demanding his head were using the fact Martin was unarmed as proof that Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was false. The implication these people made was that unarmed teenagers can’t be a threat. Jay over at MArooned has a story that demonstrates the potential lethality of unarmed teenagers:

Three teens accused of attacking a man in a West Rogers Park alley and posting video of the fatal beating online were allegedly playing a game called “pick ‘em out and knock ‘em out.”

[…]

Prosecutors said the defendants were playing a game called “pick ‘em out, and knock ’em out,” in which they identify a random victim and beat him with their fists, then rob him.

[…]

They are accused of killing 62-year-old Delfino Mora, as he was collecting cans in an alley behind the 6300 block of North Artesian Avenue last Tuesday, trying to make some money for his family of 12 children.

In this case three unarmed teenagers; ages 16, 17, and 18 years-old; killed a 62 year-old man. The fact somebody is unarmed doesn’t mean they are unable to cause great bodily harm or death, especially when they’re in groups.

Who’s to Blame if Obama Gets Reelected

The presidential election is fast approaching and that means everybody is setting up their list of people to blame if their guy isn’t occupying the White House next year. Even though the Republican Party has tried everything in the book to prevent Ron Paul from getting on the nomination list at the National Convention (RNC) he managed to get enough states to be listed:

The Republican National Convention is quickly approaching (August 26th). For over the past year, avid Ron Paul supporters have won delegate spots in various state conventions across the country. Through this hard-work, Ron Paul will officially be allowed to be nominated for the nominee of the Republican Party.

As I’ve been pointing out the Republican Party’s shenanigans many drones in the party have been making excuses for the party’s actions. The most common excuse has been the claim that Ron Paul is unelectable and that allowing him to be the presidential nominee will give Obama the election. What if Obama manages to get reelected, who will be to blame? Party drones are already trying to blame the Paul supporters but the truth is the responsible organization will be the Republican Party itself. Why? Because they’ve managed to pick the one presidential nominee that even hardcore Republican drones hate, Mitt Romney.

Paul is a dividing figure in the Republican Party but not nearly as dividing as Romney. Listening to Paul’s words and looking at his voting record leads one to realize that he supports many of the things the Republican Party claims to. Paul is pro-gun, he opposes the Affordable Healthcare Act, he wants to secure the borders, and he’s fiscally conservative. Romney, on the other hand, has a history that opposes the ideals many Republican Party members uphold. During his time as governor of Massachusetts Romney signed a permanent ban on “assault weapons” and state-wide legislation that Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act mimicked . It’s easy to see why many hardcore members of the Republican Party have expressed hatred of Romney.

While the drones within the party are getting behind Romney because that’s who their masters want, others are looking away in disgust. The most scorn members of the party are those who wanted Rick Santorum. I’ve let me absolute hatred of Santorum be known but I must admit that he’d get wider support inside of the Republican Party than Romney. There would have actually been a chance of uniting the party with Santorum whereas no such chance exists with Romney. I’ve heard numerous hardcore Republican Party members say they won’t vote for Romney but would have gladly voted for Santorum and begrudgingly voted for Paul. Romney is poison and everybody knows it. When hardcore party members won’t support the candidate he’s truly sunk. With such a wide fissure within the party it’ll be possible for Obama to win even though his approval rating is almost zilch.

What if Paul wins the nomination? Would the Republican Party still be at blame if Obama ended up winning the election? Yes. In their zealous crusade to get Romney picked as the nominee the bigwigs in the Republican Party have entirely demonized Paul. This presents a problem because a Paul victory could alienated the drones. The drones are in it to win popularity contests. It’s not ideology that motivates their current support of Romney, it’s their desire to be on the winner’s side so they can brag about how all their hard work paid off. When the bigwigs in the Republican Party say they want Romney the drones support Romney because they believe whoever is picked by the bigwigs is destined to win (and the drones are probably right about that). Their support for Romney is most publicly displayed by their hatred for Paul and their hatred of Paul is most publicly displayed by their regurgitation of anti-Paul talking points given to them by their masters. Needless to say if Romney loses the drones lose and if the drones lose they’re likely to get up and leave. They wanted to win, they obeyed their masters because their mastered guaranteed victory, and if they aren’t victorious they’ll storm out. Their vanishing act won’t be due to ideological differences with the nominee (as with the Paul supporters) but due being sore losers.

The Republican Party has done this to themselves. They managed to split the party through their zealous attempt to ensure Romney’s victory. Obama’s approval rating is in the toilet, somebody could probably run an openly racists drunk womanizer against him and win. Yet the presidential election result isn’t known because the Republican Party managed to create division within their party. If they can’t even manage to unite their party there is almost no hope of uniting enough of the nation to get their guy into office.

Oh well, whether Romney wins the election or Obama is irrelevant, we the people lose either way. When the choice is between a fascist or a fascist the only possible outcome is getting a fascist.

Big Sacrifices

It looks like the Spanish royal family has decided to make some hard decisions in these tough economic times:

The king will lose 20,900 euros (£16,400; $25,660) from his salary of just over 292,000 euros for the year – a cut of 7.1%.

In total, the 8.3m euro royal budget will be cut by 100,000 euros in 2012.

A royal budget reduction of 1.2%? My, that is a big sacrifice. However will they get by?