Month: September 2012

Pay Not Based on Results

In this time of economic hardship the teacher union in Chicago has decided to go on strike:

As many as 26,000 teachers were expected to stay away, with picket lines forming around the city.

About 350,000 students were affected by the strike in the nation’s third-largest district.

The walkout was called after all-day talks broke down on Sunday, following months of negotiations.

The two sides met again on Monday to continue negotiations, but failed to reach a settlement, meaning the strike will extend into at least a second day.

“This is not a strike I wanted,” the mayor said. “It’s unnecessary, it’s avoidable and it’s wrong.”

School officials said they had doubled the pay rise offered, for a total of 16% over four years.

“This is about as much as we can do,” Chicago school board chief David Vitale told the Chicago Tribune. “There is only so much money in the system.”

Considering the drop out rate in Chicago is roughly 40% I see no reason to give the teachers any raise. In fact I would argue they should have their paid decreased to reflect the poor job they’re doing at creating an environment where students want to come and learn.

One of These Men is Just Like the Other

This year the major goals of the Republican Party appear to be stopping the gays from marrying, killing more foreigners in war, and repealing Obamacare. To accomplish these glorious tasks the Republican National Convention (RNC) cheated to ensure Romney was their presidential nominee. Unfortunately for them their grand scheme has run into a snag, Romney doesn’t actually want to repeal Obamacare:

Romney, who faces Obama in the November 6 election, has vowed throughout the campaign to repeal and replace the Obama healthcare law. But asked about the Obama healthcare law on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Romney said, “Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform.”

“Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place,” Romney added. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

Is anybody surprised that the Massachusetts governor who signed the blueprint for Obamacare wants to keep Obamacare? The only thing Romney really wants is to replace Obama’s name on the legislation with his own. This news should make the hardcore Democrats happy since they get what they want either way (except Obama’s name on the legislation, which really is all they want).

Make the SCAR 17 More Affordable

The SCAR 17 is a rifle that I’ve had a lot of interest in. It’s chambered in my favorite rifle caliber, 7.62x51mm, and has several evolutionary improvements over the venerable AR platform. What I don’t like about the rifle is the cost. Everything about the SCAR 17 is expensive. The rifle is expensive, the ammunition is expensive, and the magazines are expensive. Instead of setting up the SCAR 17 to use widely available cheap SR-25 magazines Fabrique Nationale (FN) decided to use a proprietary magazines so supplies are extremely limited and when you can find magazines they’re in the $50.00 range. Fortunately Handl Defense has developed a solution for the magazines by developing a SCAR 17 lower receiver that accepts standard SR-25 magazines:

Handl Defense has developed an aftermarket aluminium lower receiver for the FN SCAR 17 to replace the factory polymer lower. Their SCAR25 lower (urgh, FN is not going to like their trademark being used in this way) allows the use of SR-25 and M-110 compatible magazines made by Magpul, XS , DPMS and POF. They have also made some modifications that compatibility with a greater range of AR-15 grips.

While the solution isn’t ideal it’s certainly a worthy improvement. Recovering the costs of the lower ($300.00) would be accomplished quickly considering PMAG LR20s can be found for under $20.00. On top of that you can actually get PMAG LR20s so you would no longer be relegated to having a fancy rifle with only one magazine.

Supporting Civil Liberties Only When it’s Convenient

People often claim that Democratic Party is the political party of civil liberties. Unfortunately this is only true when it’s convenient for them to support civil liberties:

What a difference four years makes.

In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform.

The article goes on to show that the new Democratic Party platform has removed references to opposing indefinite detention, prohibiting warrantless surveillance and repealing the PATRIOT Act, closing Guantanamo Bay, opposing racial profiling, and opposing torture.

When Bush was in office the Democratic Party was entirely against everything Bush did. Now that their guy is in office they are entirely supportive of Bush’s tactics. It’s not about what’s right and what’s wrong, it’s about who is in power. So long as the man in power is on “their” team whatever he does is fine.

I hope the Democratic and Republican parties get everything they want and I hope they get it hard.

Tools Big Brother Only Dreamed Of

1984 was an interesting novel. Not only did it serve as a warning of what might be (and what actually manifested) but also hypothesized on some of the technologies that would be used by the state to keep an constant eye on the people. Everything from thought police to telescreens were used to keep tabs on those living in Oceania. Today technology has advanced and the state has tools that Big Brother could only dream of:

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun rolling out its new $1 billion biometric Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. In essence, NGI is a nationwide database of mugshots, iris scans, DNA records, voice samples, and other biometrics, that will help the FBI identify and catch criminals — but it is how this biometric data is captured, through a nationwide network of cameras and photo databases, that is raising the eyebrows of privacy advocates.

Until now, the FBI relied on IAFIS, a national fingerprint database that has long been due an overhaul. Over the last few months, the FBI has been pilot testing a facial recognition system — and soon, detectives will also be able to search the system for other biometrics such as DNA records and iris scans. In theory, this should result in much faster positive identifications of criminals and fewer unsolved cases.

Imagine what combining the Federal Bureau of Investigations’s (FBI) new facial recognition technology with New York City’s spy network will do. People walking down the street can be easily identified and any criminals, which every one of us are, can be detected and state goons dispatched to the offender’s location.

It’s sad to see George Orwell’s warnings going unhindered.

More of the Same

During the Democratic National Convention (DNC) Dianne Feinstein announced that she was going to continue being bigoted towards gun owners:

Dianne Feinstein announced Wednesday that she’s re-entering the battle over gun control during her keynote speech to the California delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

[…]

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

At the delegates’ breakfast, she said that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.”

Bigotry is irrational so it’s not surprising to see Feinstein invalidate her own argument for introducing a new “assault” weapon ban. Specifically she stated that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.” In many states it’s illegal to carry long arms of any sort unless they are unloaded and in a locked case. There is a federal prohibition against carrying firearms into public schools so one cannot legally bring an “assault” weapon into a classroom. Many theaters, including most of the theaters in the Twin Cities, post notification against carry weapons on the property. Each of the locations she mentioned have currently established restrictions (some are prohibitions left up to the property owner while others are legal prohibitions) against carrying “assault” weapons within. If current gun control laws have failed to stop weapons from entering gun-free zones how will passing more gun control laws change anything?

Feinstein is so obsessed with her crusade against gun owners that she doesn’t even see the fallacy in her own arguments.

I’m Doing Plenty

The Republican and Democratic parties have chosen then presidential candidates and both of them are war mongers. I’m not shy when it comes to pointing this out to my politically oriented friends. Since they’re unable to counter my accusations against their candidates they have began using another tactic, they’re trying to lay the blame for the war mongering nature of the United States on me. OK, not specifically me, they’re blaming everybody who they perceive as whining instead of actually doing something. In their eyes whenever I complain about the war mongers running for president I’m simply whining. Their responses are usually variations on telling me to stop whining and run for office. Such responses always make me smile.

People seem to have a habit of getting so caught up in their own methodologies that they fail to see that other methodologies exist. Furthermore they becomes to wrapped up in their own methodologies that they fail to see when those methodologies prove to be ineffective. Combining these two factors seems to be a recipe for lashing out at anybody who don’t approach a problem the same way as they do.

My friends that support the Democratic Party are now cheering on four more years of Obama. This response is interesting to note because it was only four years ago when they wanted to nominate Obama because he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, end Bush’s wars, work to legalize marijuana, and push for legislation that would lost the cost of healthcare for Americans. After four years of Obama as president Guantanamo Bay is still open, we are now embroiled in more wars than we were during Bush’s reign, marijuana dispensaries that are legal in the states they reside are being raided by the federal executive branch , and the cost of healthcare is going to go nowhere but up now that everybody is forced to buy health insurance or face state inflicted consequences. To claim that the political means failed to achieve any of my Democratic friends’ goals would be an understatement. Yet when I challenge them about this they resort to calling me a whiner because I’m not trying to change things.

What my friends aren’t considering is the fact that I am working to change things, I’m merely taking advantage of the knowledge I’ve gained from observing their failures. As I just explained my friends have failed to achieve their desired ends using the political means. Electing Obama didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalize marijuana, or bring the cost of healthcare down. An impartial outside observer would point out that reelecting Obama isn’t going to accomplish any of those ends either. When something fails to work trying the exact same thing again isn’t rational. Their failure is valuable though because it demonstrates what not to do. Now that we know what doesn’t work we can try something else.

How am I working to close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalized marijuana, and reduce the price of health care? By removing the entity that has enabled all of the headaches, the state. The state opened Guantanamo Bay, involved itself in the wars, prohibited marijuana, and raised healthcare prices criminalized free competition that market. Even if the political means could be utilized to correct all of these issues, logic would dictate, it could be used again later to recreate all of these issues. Why would I waste my time doing something that a proven failure and doesn’t guarantee long-term results?

Ending the state is no easy task. Attempts have been made in the past with varying results. The Revolutionary War was effective in ending the British state that reigned over the American colonies so violent insurrection has a demonstrated history of toppling states. Yet the long-term results were less than stellar. Shortly after the establishment of the new American state force was already being used to coerce individuals. Today, under the same state that has its roots in the Revolutionary War, we once again have high taxes and an overbearing state. Needless to say violent revolution is not the methodology to achieve long-term liberty so we must learn from past mistakes and try something different.

I advocate agorism. Agorism is a method specifically ended at ending the state through counter-economics and preventing a new state from rising later down the road. If it’s effective it will accomplish all of the goals my Democratic friends desired when Obama was running for his first term. Can I say it will work for certain? No, and if it fails that failure should be learned from and something new tried. Does practicing agorism constitute mere whining? No, it has a greater chance to achieve a better society than the political means that has been demonstrably impotent. Is agorism the only possible tactic? Absolutely not. Perhaps working inside a third party will accomplish great things. Historically it hasn’t accomplished much but it’s still a far better tactic than working inside of the current major political parties.

If you work outside the political system, or even if you working inside of the political system through third parties, you will suffer accusations of wasting time. These accusations should be ignored because they are coming from myopic individuals who are entirely incapable of seeing strategies outside of those that they’ve been using with little or no success. People working outside of the political system or inside through third parties are doing far more work in the name of changing the United States than those working inside the Democratic or Republican parties.

When your Democratic or Republican friends accuse you of not doing anything to fix the problems you raise know that you’re actually doing far more than they are. Instead of trying to beat a screw into a board with a hammer you’re trying a different tool. Is it the right tool? Maybe not, but continuing to try the hammer has a long history of failing and any untried tool will give you better odds. Sure, those who invested thousands of dollars in new hammers will say you’re wasting your money but they’re the ones who keep doing the same thing over and over again without notable results.

The Real Threat

Advocates of gun control generally want to disarm “civilians” but allow military and police members to keep their firearms. Since gun control advocates always claim their crusade is done in the name of stopping violence, yet their justification and what they advocate directly conflict:

Two events this past week clearly illustrated a reality that has long been understood by firearm trainers, but is virtually unknown to the public – that most cops are really poor shots with a handgun, placing the public at great risk when they engage in shootouts with suspects, while many civilians who regularly carry guns are far less likely to hit innocent bystanders.

[…]

But how can this be? Aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is NO. Contrary to the claims of politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. And when they get there, they usually fire no more than one box of ammunition – a mere 50 rounds.

True, there are exceptions – some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in “combat” shooting competition. As a result, they are highly skilled, and would likely be far more effective than most of their fellow officers, should they become involved in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions.

Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I myself shoot approximately 75 times a year (twice a week in Summer, and at least once a week in Winter). Now, I am a professional firearm instructor, and thus not the norm, but I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, so I am by no means an anomaly.

The real threat to public safety aren’t permit holders, it’s the police. Police officers have a dangerous combination of legal immunity from consequences resulting in their poor shooting and an utter lack of training with the weapons they care everyday. Little motivation exists for police officers to improve their skill as they are seldom held responsible for any “collateral damage” they cause. Meanwhile many permit holders are gun enthusiasts who practice shooting on a regular basis and realize there are severe legal consequences to shooting innocent bystanders. Who would you trust more with a firearm?