Month: July 2012

What Happens When You Play by the Rules

It seems that the Republican National Convention (RNC) is pissed that the Ron Paul supporters have figured out its rules and procedures and are planning to use them to their advantage. Even though the RNC has selected Romney as their candidate the Paul supporters are planning on using ever rule, procedure, and trick to fight the good fight, which has made higher ups in the Republican Party very nervous:

Security at the state Republican convention has been tightened this summer in case turmoil breaks out as it did in other states where Ron Paul and Mitt Romney supporters clashed over control.

[…]

The executive director of the state Republican Party, Jordan McGrain, told Nebraska Watchdog in addition to its usual sergeant at arms committee, the party hired additional security for the first time in convention history, to his knowledge. Party officials are preparing for potential for trouble caused by Paul supporters.

[…]

McGrain said Paul’s supporters are trying to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.”

He has been warned by Republican officials in Nevada and Louisiana to be prepared for “Paulistas” to try to seize control of the convention through endless votes, amendments, re-votes and parliamentary delays aimed at wearing out establishment Republicans.

I love the last part where they say the Paul supporters are planning to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.” In other words the Paul supporters are planning on playing by the very rules setup by the Republican Party itself. The only obvious way for the establishment to fight this is to go outside of the rules. Of course they can’t just blatantly do that and maintain their appearance of a democracy. I’m betting the RNC hired additional security, not because they’re afraid the Paul supporters will become violent but, because they want to demonize the Paul supporters. Look at how they’re justifying the additional security, they are implying the Paul supporters warrant such a response because of their potential for harm. With such a justification in place the establishment in the Republican Party can easily have the Paul supporters removed if it appears they’re gaining an advantage and public opinion will side with the decision. If you can’t win by the rules you need to build public support for your side so you can play outside of the rules.

This is why I believe the strategy of “reforming” the Republican Party is foolish. The Republican Party doesn’t want to be reformed, they’re quite happy promoting war, cronyism, and destroying any rights listed in the Constitution. Anybody who believes the Republican Party is run by the people is entirely mistaken, it’s run by a few power players who generally rely on their sheep mindlessly going where they’re told but have no issue playing outside of the rules if some of the sheep begin dissenting. When such hostilities to change become openly apparent it’s time to move on to something else.

Surprising Nobody, the Department Stands Behind the Officers’ Actions

So many mistakes were made in this raid that I’m not sure where to begin:

In the early-morning hours, deputies knocked on 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott’s door without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers. Scott answered the door with a gun in his hand.

“When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that’s when we opened fire and killed him,” Lt. John Herrell said. “Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy’s shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide.”

Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons.

The police were chasing a homicide suspect who parked his motorcycle in the parking lot of an apartment complex and disappeared. In their infinite wisdom the police assumed the suspect ran into one apartment and went pounding on the door at 1:30 in the morning without so much as announcing who they were. Being a startled chap, the person living in the apartment grabbed a gun and answered the door. Upon opening the door the resident was greeted by gunfire from the officers.

In order, I’d say the first mistake was made when the police decided to play eeny meeny miny mo to decide which apartment the suspect had gone into. The second mistake was made when the police started pounding on the randomly selected door without announcing that they were, in fact, police officers. Mistake three was made by the resident, who opened the door (although this may have been irrelevant as I’ll explain in a second). Finally, the fourth mistake was made by the police who decide it was entirely OK to gun down the resident of the randomly selected apartment.

I mentioned that the fact the resident opened the door may have been irrelevant, this is because things may not have changed if he didn’t. Had the resident not opened the door the officers would have likely kicked the door in and came storming in. Upon seeing the armed resident the officers would likely have shot him dead as target identification did not seem high on their priority list. I won’t fault the resident for arming himself, I’d do the exact same thing if I heard people banging on my door at 1:30 in the morning (although I wouldn’t answer).

As far as I’m concerned the police are entirely at fault in this case. They had no way of knowing if they had selected the correct apartment, never announced they were police officers, and made no attempt to identify the person who opened the door before they opened fire. Lieutenant John Herrell tried to justify the officers’ actions by stating the resident was pointing a gun at them. That excuse doesn’t fly when the officers not only selected the apartment by little more than random chance but failed to even announce they were police officers. They claim that their failure to announce was done for “safety reasons” (meaning officer safety only) but that also doesn’t fly. Individuals joining the police department know what they’re getting into, it’s an unsafe job, and there are responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is alerting residents that you’re police officers so they know that the random people banging on their door at 1:30 in the morning aren’t thugs looking to commit murder (and even if you do announce that you’re police officers you can’t assume that the resident(s) will believe you, criminals have been known to impersonate police officers before). The job of police officers, at least they claim, is to protect and serve not kick own doors and gun down anybody they see who is armed. Because of this it’s imperative that officers identify their targets. A man holding a gun when answering his door because random people are banging on it at 1:30 shouldn’t be surprising or treated as a threat of violence in of itself. If the resident had made verbal threats towards the officers or shot at the officers it would be a different game.

From where I’m sitting this looks like a pretty cut and dry case of murder. If the resident had made threats towards the officers or shot at them I’m sure that knowledge would have been divulged to justify the officers’ actions. As it sits the only justification being given is the fact the resident was holding a firearm, which shouldn’t be treated as unusual considering the circumstances.

The Futility of Arguing Constitutionality

We all like to argue about the true meaning of the Constitution. Arguments regarding constitutionality fall into two camps generally referred to as left and right. The left usually argue that the language in the Constitution grants vast authority to the federal government or will bring up the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” whose interpretation can change over time (of course this idea is patently absurd as that would mean the Constitution is the only piece of legislation that can be interpreted differently over time). On the other side we have the right who generally argue that the Constitution grants very limited powers to the federal government. Both sides use the same text to argue in favor of their positions. Unfortunately arguments based on constitutionality are meaningless because the Constitution itself grants the power to arbitrate such disagreements to a branch of the federal government.

Article 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The part I’m mainly referring to is “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” In arguing against arguments based on constitutionality I’m going to make a constitutional argument (how messed up is that?). The reason for this is that I’m concerned with how the excerpt is used today in law, not my interpretation on how it should be used.

The power of the judiciary extends to all cases arising under the Constitution itself. Effectively this grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution by being the ultimate arbitrator in disagreements regarding the document. If one group says the Commerce Clause doesn’t allow the federal government to regulate goods manufactured and sold for exclusive use in one individual state while another groups says the opposite they may find their disagreement going to the Supreme Court. At that point the Supreme Court will rule in favor of one side. As the Supreme Court works on a majority vote and has nine judges the legal interpretation of constitutional language is decided by five individuals. No matter what you and I say, no matter what anybody outside of the Supreme Court says, those five guys are the only people who get to decide what the Constitution really means.

An example of this is the Commerce Clause. This seemingly minor entry in the list of Congressional powers has been used to justify numerous laws that were later challenged by upheld by the Supreme Court. One such case was Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court decided the Commerce Clause granted the federal government the authority to prevent an individual from growing more than an the state allowed amount of wheat even though the wheat was intended for personal use. The Supreme Court’s logic basically revolved around the fact that a farmer who grew his own wheat wouldn’t buy wheat on the market and therefore would effect wheat prices. Many people would say that such a ruling was bullshit, that the Founding Fathers never meant for the Commerce Clause to mean that, but the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ultimate authority in arbitrating such debates so, through their ruling, the Commerce Clause means the federal government can regulate wheat production for private use.

The catch-22 of arguing constitutionality is the fact that the Constitution itself makes such arguments pointless.

It’s Probably Not a Coincidence

It seems the Venezuelan government has been abusing its power more and more:

The abuse of power by the Venezuelan government under President Hugo Chavez has increased over the past four years, according to Human Rights Watch.

Legislation limiting free speech and the removal of institutional safeguards give the government free rein to censor and intimidate critics, the group says.

[…]

Its latest report, entitled Tightening the Grip: Concentration and Abuse of Power in Chavez’s Venezuela, argues that the human rights situation in the country has become even more precarious.

I doubt it’s a coincidence that the Venezuelan government has been increasingly infringing on free speech and ignoring supposed institutional safeguards during the same span of time that it’s been restricting gun ownership. In “>2006 the Venezuelan government implemented stricter gun control laws and went even further this year when it banned legal gun ownership for non-military and non-police personell. History has demonstrated that states start implementing arms control as they are ramping up the tyranny machinery.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership has an excellent list of states that implemented gun control schemes shortly before beginning acts of genocide. The Soviet Union, for example, didn’t abolish private gun ownership until 1929, immediately before Stalin’s purges began. Nazi Germany also implemented gun control laws that prevented Jews and other state-proclaimed enemies from owning firearms. Needless to say it’s not surprising to see Venezuela following the same road. Now that Chavez’s empire has declared a state monopoly on gun ownership things are bound to only get worse. Again, if you live in Venezuela it would be a good time to get out.

What $37 Billion Doesn’t Get You

What can’t $37 billion buy you? An aircraft carrier with urinals:

The change heralded by the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers – starting with the namesake carrier due in late 2015 – is one of a number of new features meant to improve sailors’ quality of life and reduce maintenance costs, Capt. Chris Meyer said Wednesday.

Omitting urinals lets the Navy easily switch the designation of any restroom – or head, in naval parlance – from male to female, or vice versa, helping the ship adapt to changing crew compositions over time, Meyer said.

The Navy could designate a urinal-fitted area to women, of course, but the urinals would be a waste of space. Making the areas more gender-neutral is a relatively new consideration for the service, with most of its current carriers commissioned before it began deploying women on combat ships in 1994.

They list several other reasons but I think the bottom line is this: the entire everybody is equal bullshit has simply gone to new levels. Can you think of a downside to not having urinals on a ship? Anybody who has been to a busy bar can probably answer this question. Men who are forced to piss in a standard toilet generally do so standing up and I’d be polite if I said their aim was less than optimal. The toilet seat of practically every bar and restaurant you can find has been pissed on. Without urinals on these $37 billion aircraft carriers there are going to be a lot of piss covered toilet seats and I can tell you one thing, the women on board aren’t going to be too keen on switching the bathroom gender assignments.

Reality isn’t kind, it doesn’t bend itself to the desires of the everybody is equal zealots. Biologically men and women are different. At the very basic level men can’t have children whereas women can. Needless to say that apparently minor difference makes a lot of other differences also exist. Common sense people, we need to find it again.

After all, for $37 billion urinals should be accessories included with the base package. I can understand making the United States Navy pay a few billion more for the deluxe package that includes rail guns, but urinals should be standard.

We Didn’t Get Here on Our Own

Obama gave a political speech and you know what that means? It means the Internet is abuzz with his supporters cheering his speech and his opponents decrying his speech. His opponents have been brining up a part of his speech that strongly mirrors that famous one given by Elizabeth Warren some time ago. Basically Obama is trying to explain how all successful people became successful because of the government:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

This part of his speech is true, nobody became successful by themselves. One needs consumers to buy their products or services before they can become successful. Unfortunately, as is common for Obama, his grain of truth is used to create a bucket of lies:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Is this the same unbelievable American system that diverts ungodly amounts of money into the construction of drones, aircraft carriers, and submarines so we can trot around the world and kill people who aren’t like us? Is this the same unbelievable American system that protects the interests of favored businesses from competition? Is this the same unbelievable American system that will murder you if you disobey one of its decrees?

The one thing our unbelievable American system hasn’t done is allow us to thrive… unless you’re one of the state’s cronies of course.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

I think he mean somebody paid for the roads and bridges at gunpoint because the state has claimed a monopoly on the construction of transportation infrastructure. People didn’t invest in those roads and bridges, they paid for them because they were forced to, they were threatened with kidnapping and detainment in a cage if they didn’t “invest” in the state monopoly.

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.

Obama is correct, most businesses were physically built by private construction companies. The success of those businesses was made possible by consumers. An entrepreneur came up with the idea and figured out how to execute it. In fact the only real hinderance was the state that demanded a huge portion of the business owner’s wealth in exchange for “protection” from itself.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

OK, here is where I raise a giant middle finger. The state didn’t create the Internet “so that all companies could make money off of the Internet.” Do you know why the state created the technology that lead to the Internet? Because the United States government was having the biggest dick measuring competition in the history of the human race with Soviet Russia. Realizing that a centralized communication system would be rendered entirely inoperable by a Soviet nuclear strike the United States government moved to develop a more decentralized communication network. It had nothing to do with helping companies make money, it had everything with that silly little competition that almost ended life on this planet as we know it.

The last thing the United States government had on its mind with the predecessor to the Interent was economic gains, they just wanted to survive the stupid little war they managed to get every man, woman, and child living within its borders involved in. No member of the state can claim any kind of moral high ground when it comes to the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Yeah, imagine if everybody was able to voluntarily decide whether or not they even wanted fire service. As it sits right now fire departments are funded by stolen money and you know what? I still see firefighters standing in the middle of busy intersections with boots begging for even more money. Are they underfunded? Perhaps, but as they don’t have to compete on a free market against other fire departments we can’t be sure. For all we know the local fire departments are merely inefficient and frivolously throwing money away.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

I like how he continues to purposely confuse the idea of people working together and people being forced into actions they may not want to take at the point of the state’s gun. He’s also shown a complete lack of historical knowledge, by his definition of people working together (that is the federal government doing it with stolen money) it didn’t happen “since the founding of this country” because the Articles of Confederation didn’t grant Congress the power to tax. Instead the Congress was relegated to begging the individual states for money, which meant the states were actually in control but that we never did things together, by his definition, until the ratification of the Constitution.

His claim that we rise and fall together as one nation is also patently false. As it currently stands the state’s cronies are rising while everybody else is falling. In fact the average American family income has been falling for the last ten or so years while corporate profits are hitting all time highs. It appears as though we aren’t all rising and falling together as a nation.

The speech continues on but that section summed it up well. According to Obama nothing would every get accomplished if it wasn’t for the all powerful state forcing people to surrender an ever-increasing portion of their wealth. Individuals in Obama’s world of delusion are entirely incapable of working together.

Working for the Man

How many hours of your peasant life are spent working for the feudal lords? A lot:

This year, Americans have to work until July 15 to pay for the burden of government, more than six months.

In a new report, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated that Americans will spend a total of 197 days toiling to pay for the cost of government.

[…]

The report, Cost of Government Day, shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

Six months of your life next year will be spent working to give a violent agency that’s spending every dollar it can get ahold of to further cement its power in order to steal even more from you. Feudalism never left, we’re the peasants while the state is the manor lord. We’re allowed to keep a portion of what we make for subsistence only because dead people don’t generate wealth that can be stolen.

Fun with Socialists

You know what my favorite thing about socialists is? The amount of cognitive dissonance required in order to continue supporting the socialist ideal. Proponents claim socialism will bring in a new wave of freedom, plenty, and prosperity but history has demonstrated that it brings war, famine, and totalitarian rule. I should stop here and bring up the fact that I’m referring specifically to socialism and not communism, which has never really appeared.

Communism, although I don’t believe it will work either, is different than socialism in that there is no state. Socialism, in the eyes of many communist proponents like Marx, was a means to an end, which was communism. According to Marxists socialism, that is the dictatorship of the proletariat where the state completely controls all means of production, would eventually lead to the withering away of the state and birth true communism. The problem with this theory is that is relies on the all powerful state to eventually ceded its power, something that is almost entirely unprecedented in human history. Needless to say I respect anarcho-communists far more than socialists because the anarcho-communists are least acknowledge the fact that an all powerful state is unlikely to cede power and thus the socialist stepping stone will ensure communism never appears.

Why do I bring this up? Because it’s relatively important information for the opinion letter I’m going to rip apart:

I agree with Milos Forman that the word “socialism” is almost invariably misused (“Americans shouldn’t fling the ‘socialist’ label so casually,” July 13). President Obama is far from being a genuine socialist, and Obamacare is the furthest thing from socialism.

I agree with the author here, Obama isn’t a socialist nor is Obamacare socialistic healthcare. Obama and his healthcare strategy are fascist, that is to say it’s a marriage between the state and its favored corporations. A socialistic healthcare system would be one akin go that implemented in the Soviet Union and various European countries where the state has total control. Obama’s system mandates that everybody purchase health insurance from various insurance companies. Under the Obamacare system everybody is forced to do business with health insurance companies whereas a socialistic system forced everybody to do business with the state (instead of paying premiums to a private business you have to pay taxes to the state).

Unfortunately the author’s letter goes downhill from there as he needs to do some hand waving in order to make excuses for the previous failures of socialism:

However, Forman’s portrayal is also off-base. He was a victim of Stalinism in his native Czechoslovakia, so one can understand his rancor. However, to equate the regimes that existed in the USSR and Eastern Europe with genuine socialism is a travesty.

Socialism has quite the body count as pointed out by R. J. Rummel in his book Death by Government. His book demonstrates that there is a positive correlation between state power and people killed by the state. One cannot claim the history of socialism in this world was merely a victim of Stalinism since Stalin only ruled in one country and nothing really changed in that country after his rule. For example, North Korea was never ruled by Stalin but their regime is certainly as lethal as Stalin’s was. Cambodia is another example as the Khumer Rouge regime ruled by Pol Pot ended up wiping out anywhere between 1/5 and 1/3 of the entire population of Cambodia.

The author continues in his quest to dispel criticisms of socialism but defining “real” socialism:

Genuine socialism — as espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky — is about genuine political and economic freedom and democracy.

Interesting, I wonder what definition of freedom the author uses. Socialism, by definition, lacks political and economic freedom because the entire economy is lead by a dictatorship of the proletariat. It should be noted that dictatorship, in this case, isn’t used in the traditional sense. When proponents of socialism, such as Marx, say the dictatorship of the proletariat they mean that the entire political system is controlled by the proletariat and that all members have say democratically. Unfortunately, democracies are not bastions of freedom but tyrannies of the majority. With democracies everything, including your supposed rights, becomes conditional. If a majority of the people vote one way then that’s the way things will be, even if their vote is to sieze your property. Freedom cannot exist if everything in society becomes conditionally based on majority rule because the minority will always be oppressed.

Economic freedom is another thing that doesn’t exist under socialism as all means of production are controlled by the state. One cannot build a factory, hire locals as employees, and begin selling products in a socialist system because the state will come and sieze the factory. In the Soviet Union members acting under market principle were labeled speculators and, well…

All these data show that the workers of Petrograd are monstrously inactive. The Petrograd workers and soldiers must understand that they have no one to look to but themselves. The facts of abuse are glaring, the speculation, monstrous; but what have the mass of soldiers and workers done about it? You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action. A plenary meeting of the Soviet must be called to decide on mass searches in Petrograd and the goods stations. To carry out these searches, each factory and company must form contingents, not on a voluntary basis: it must be the duty of everyone to take part in these searches under the threat of being deprived of his bread card. We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.

Emphasis mine. Those were words penned by Lenin, who the author claims is a “real” socialist by the way. Not only was Lenin advocating that speculators be shot on sight, but he also demanded anybody unwilling to help with searches be deprived of their food. When the state controls the means of production, and thus food distribution, they can coerce you into actions you don’t wish to take by threatening you starvation. The author’s claim that political and economic freedom exists under “real” socialism is laughable.

What is socialism, according to the author, truly about? Mostly free shit:

It is about full employment; universal health care and education; a shorter workweek; safe, affordable housing, and infrastructure. The only thing standing between a world of plenty and the world of misery and inequality we live in today are the enormous profits of the billionaires — the 1 percent.

In this paragraph the author shows his true economic ignorance. According to the author the only thing standing between us and all that free shit he mentioned are those wealthy bastards. Using the author’s logic removing the “1 percent” would mean every natural resource would become infinitely abundant. At least that’s the only way one can reconcile what the author said as one cannot have plenty unless we live in the Garden of Eden, for almost all wants of humanity derive from one form of natural resource or another. Computers require silicon, copper, steel, plastic, etc. to build. In order to produce food one needs arable land, seeds, fertilizer, water, etc. Although I accept the fact that I could be wrong, I don’t believe there are actually an infinite amount of resources available. Is there really a conspiracy amongst the “1 percent” to hold the infinite amount of resources from the people? If so, where are they putting those infinite resources? Perhaps they’re hiding them one their infinite land located in their strange pocket of time/space where time (which is a scares resource in itself) is also infinite.

That’s the issue most socialists and communists have, they claim there will be a new wave of plenty if we can merely get rid of the bourgeois but seem to miss the fact that all resources are limited. There is also the issue of the economic calculation problem brought up by Ludwig von Mises. How could a socialist paradise ensure plenty? To ensure plenty one must know what people will want in the future and direct scarce resources towards fulfilling those wants. What happens when a majority of agriculture is put into wheat production but a majority of people want soy?

We also have the issue of labor, something socialist rarely address. How could one have universal healthcare if there aren’t enough people willing to work in the healthcare industry? Under socialism all are supposedly equal, which means paying somebody more for one job than another person for a differing job leads to problems. Why be a doctor if being an auto-mechanism pays the same but requires far less time investment? Who is going to maintain sewage processing systems? Let’s be honest, nobody really wants to do that job but they do it because the economic reward is high:

I’ll bet you never thought that a job existed for landfill divers. It does. The salary is around $3,500-4,000 a month. Not bad.

Socialists have never really addressed the issue of getting undesirable jobs done when there is no benefit. Usually they claim that people will do such jobs out of realizing the social necessity but in practice they usually do such jobs because the state has a gun to their head. Let’s move on:

People are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo and long for a more rational way of organizing society. This explains the growing interest in the ideas of socialism and Marxism. As a supporter of the Workers International League, based right here in Minneapolis, I invite my friends and neighbors to learn more about what these ideas truly represent, and to make up their own minds at www.socialistappeal.org. After all, if socialism is “dead and buried,” why expend so much energy “disproving” and misrepresenting it?

JOHN PETERSON, MINNEAPOLIS

A society where everything is conditional based upon the desire of the majority and economic freedom isn’t allowed to exist is more rational? I’m not entirely sure what the author’s definition of rational is but it certainly doesn’t match mine. I also wonder if the author’s claim that interest in socialism and Marxism is actually growing. The few socialist gatherings I’ve seen here in the Twin Cities have been more sparsely populated than local Libertarian Party meetings (which is saying a lot). In all honesty, most people in the United States don’t fall into the socialist or individualist category, they fall into the Republican or Democrat category. Most people realize they’re being screwed but don’t understand the why and how so they look for answers with one of the two major political parties. The only proponents of communistic ideals with any number of members in the Twin Cities that I’m aware of are the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, neither of which support socialism.

Proponents of socialism seem to believe the solution to a corrupt all-powerful state is to replace it with another corrupt all-powerful state. This belief likely stems from the fact that the new all-powerful government would have their socialistic views in mind (for a very short while, until the next Stalin gains power). As a general rule any philosophy built upon the idea of granting complete power over individuals by other individuals is doomed to fail (unless the intended goal is achieving power and nothing more). Socialists suffer from an inability to learn from history.

Facebook is Spying on You and Water is Wet

In news that is sure to shock nobody some information has come to light about Facebook’s method for spying on its users:

Facebook has added sleuthing to its array of data-mining capabilities, scanning your posts and chats for criminal activity. If the social-networking giant detects suspicious behavior, it flags the content and determines if further steps, such as informing the police, are required.

[…]

Facebook’s software focuses on conversations between members who have a loose relationship on the social network. For example, if two users aren’t friends, only recently became friends, have no mutual friends, interact with each other very little, have a significant age difference, and/or are located far from each other, the tool pays particular attention.

The scanning program looks for certain phrases found in previously obtained chat records from criminals, including sexual predators (because of the Reuters story, we know of at least one alleged child predator who is being brought before the courts as a direct result of Facebook’s chat scanning)

For the sake of public relations Facebook made sure to pull an “It’s for the children!” move when they let people in on their little monitoring mechanism. The story talks about an instance where a man in his early 30s tried to pick up a 13 year-old girl. See, it’s good that Facebook spys on its users, they’re protecting the children!

Anybody who is surprised by this news obviously hasn’t been paying attention to Facebook’s business model. Facebook’s customers aren’t their users, it’s their advertisers. Advertisers pay Facebook money because Facebook’s users voluntarily give up a great deal of personal information that can be used to better target ads. As their business model involves mining personal data from users so the monitoring tools are already in place. It’s trivial to include certain phrases indicating criminal behavior in their data mining system.

The golden rule of the Internet is that you shouldn’t use third-party services to do anything illegal. Whether you’re selling drugs or plotting to overthrow the Republic of Elbonia do it with encrypted communication methods that aren’t controlled by third-parties. You should probably give only information you’re comfortable with the whole world knowing to third-party services as well.

Stubbs for Mayor

I’m sure everybody is aware of my distain for authority and especially political figures. I can happily say that I’ve finally found a politician that I can support, Stubbs the cat:

TALKEETNA, Alaska — A cat named Stubbs has been the mayor of Talkeetna for nearly all of his life — no joke.

It’s been that way for more than a decade in the small tourist town that boasts nearly 900 residents.

[…]

As the story goes, 15 years ago several of the town residents didn’t like the candidates who were running for mayor of Talkeetna, so as a joke, they encouraged enough people to elect Stubbs the cat as a write-in candidate, and he actually won.

Now, thanks to Stubbs, local tour guides have a little fun with the thousands of tourists who come through the town each summer.

A small mammal that generally keeps to itself, is incapable of using force to coerce you into actions you don’t want to take (seriously, if a cat can coerce you then you’ve got issues), and eats rodents that periodically attempt to damage your property and pilfer you food, what’s not to like? On top of that he also boosts tourism so is actually brining money to the community (as opposed to take it from the community as most mayors do). It is my hope that more municipalities will find wisdom in the actions of Talkeetna, Alaska and vote cats into political office.