Month: October 2012

FBI Captures Another FBI Created Terrorist

Stop me if you’ve heard this story before. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) made a big announcement bragging about the terrorist they captured. It is later found out that the terrorist was actually contacted by an undercover FBI agent, urged to commit an act of terror by the undercover FBI agent, and provided a weapon by the undercover FBI agent. Yes, the FBI is again bragging about stopping a terrorist plot of their own creation:

A terrorist tried to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in Lower Manhattan with a 1,000-pound bomb this morning, authorities said.

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 21, parked a van filled with what he thought were real explosives outside of the Liberty Street building, sources said, then tried to set them off using a cell phone detonator.

Nafis obtained 20 50-pound bags of explosives from an undercover FBI agent that he met on the Internet, authorities said.

In a statement meant to take responsibility for the attack, Nafis said he wanted to “destroy America,” by targeting its economy.

These supposed plots become more ridiculous every time. Apparently Nafis wanted to destroy America by targeting the Federal Reserve. What makes this story hilarious is that the Federal Reserve is one of the primary reasons the American economy is in the toilet.

The only thing left to say about this story is that it demonstrates that the only reason we need the FBI is to protect us against the FBI.

The Onion has Started Doing Real Journalism

For agens now the Onion has been one of the best known satire newspapers. It seems that they have decided to do some legitimate news pieces:

HEMPSTEAD, NY—According to reports, millions of viewers across the country are expected to tune in to tonight’s town-hall-style presidential debate at Hofstra University in order to determine which complete and utter sociopath they find more likable this time around.

“I’m very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing and authentic approximation of an actual human conscience tonight,” said Cincinnati-area voter Miranda Harrick, 40, adding that both candidates, like all successful politicians, were undeniably skilled at such calculated artifice. “I think whoever is able to best manipulate me into thinking they experience normative emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November, so I’m excited to see what happens.”

This election has boiled down to decide which sociopath appeals to you more. Do you want a blood thirsty war monger or a blood thirsty war monger?

Why Your Presidential Vote Won’t Count in Minnesota

Advocates of voting for third-party candidates are often subjected to ridicule because their votes, statistically speaking, don’t count. Supporters of the two party system claim that anybody voting for a third-party candidate is throwing their vote away or is actually voting for one of the two major candidates (Republicans will claim a third-party vote is actually a vote for Obama while Democrats will claim that a third-party vote is actually a vote for Romney). Fortunately I live in Minnesota and can tell you that your presidential vote won’t count unless you vote for Obama. To understand this one must look at the electoral college system. Many people don’t realize that presidential elections aren’t determined by popular vote, they’re determined by the electoral college system:

When U.S. citizens vote for president and vice President every election cycle, ballots show the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, although they are actually electing a slate of “electors” that represent them in each state. The electors from every state combine to form the Electoral College.

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. House representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state’s population as determined in the census).

When you cast a vote for president you’re not actually casting a vote for that candidate, you’re casting a vote for a group of presidential electors. These electors are the people who actually vote for the president. Effectively you cast a vote for a group of “representatives” who actually get to vote for the president. Now we must look at how electors are selected:

Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates its own set of electors for each state, matching the number of electors they appoint with the number of electoral votes allotted to the state. This usually occurs at state party conventions. Electors are typically strong and loyal supporters of their political party, but can never be a U.S. Senator or Representative. Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge.

After the election, by statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the party that wins the most votes in that state appoints all of the electors for that state. This is known as a “winner-take-all” or “unit rule” allocation of electors, which became the norm across the nation by the 1830’s. Currently, the only exceptions to the unit rule are in Maine and Nebraska that allocate their electors by congressional district, plus two at-large electors awarded to the candidate who wins the states’ popular votes.

Minnesota has 10 electoral votes (we have eight House representaties and two Senators) so each political party gets to elect 10 presidential electors. With the exception of two states, presidential electors are selected on a “winner-takes-all” basis. Minnesota is not one of those two states:

6. Can a voter split votes between presidential elector candidates of different political parties?

No.

A vote can only be cast for the entire slate of electors by voting for the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that the candidates for elector are pledged to support.

7. Are the presidential elector candidates required to receive a majority of the votes cast (50%) in Minnesota?

No.

The presidential electors pledged to support the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that receives the MOST votes in MINNESOTA are certified as the official presidential electors for Minnesota. The winning slate of electors is only required to receive more votes in Minnesota than any other slate of electors. A majority (50% plus one vote) is not required for an elector to be elected.

Whichever party gets the majority of votes in Minnesota gets to select all of the presidential electors. If the Democratic Party gets 30% of the votes, the Republican Party gets 29% of the votes, the Libertarian Party gets 21% of the votes, and the Green Party gets 20% of the votes the Democratic Party gets to select all of the electors. If you don’t vote for the majority presidential candidate in Minnesota your vote literally doesn’t count.

Let’s take a look at Minnesota’s electoral college history. Since 1932 the Democratic Party has won all but three presidential elections in Minnesota. The last presidential election won by the Republicans in Minnesota was in 1972. That means since 1972 no vote for a Republican president has counted in the state of Minnesota. Furthermore Obama is polling ahead of Romney in this state so history is looking to repeat itself.

Claiming that any presidential vote cast for a third-party is being thrown away in Minnesota is effectively true. Likewise claiming any presidential vote cast for the Republican Party is being thrown away in Minnesota is also effectively true. Unless you’re planning to vote for Obama in this election your vote won’t matter in the state of 10,000 lakes.

What does all of this mean? For those of your on the fence about voting for a third-party candidate it means you can safely do so without worrying about whether or not your vote may lead to the “greater” of two evils becoming president. If you’re a libertarian that is worried about Obama getting reelected if you vote for Gary Johnson put your worries to rest. The same goes for those of you considering voting for the Green Party, Constitution Party, or any other political party. Obama is all but guaranteed to win all 10 electoral votes in Minnesota regardless of how you vote. Vote your conscious because, unless you’re voting for Obama, your vote won’t have any affect on the presidential race.

Don’t let the two major parties scare you into voting for one of their candidates. I know many advocates of gun rights are trying to convince people to vote for Romney because they believe he will nominate more gun friendly Supreme Court judges. That issue doesn’t concern you if you live in Minnesota because you don’t get a say in this election unless you support Obama. Vote for who you want to win. Since your vote is going to be thrown away you might as well have a clear conscious after you’re done casting a ballot.

The Romney Campaign Needs a Better Propaganda Minister

I don’t know how to put this delicately so I’ll be blunt; the Romney campaign needs to hire a new propaganda minister. After Paul Ryan’s recent fiasco it’s obvious that the campaign’s propaganda minister isn’t doing his job:

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week “ramrodded their way” into the group’s Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

[…]

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

A propaganda minister has one very simple job: make the candidate or candidates under his or her care look good in the public eye. That’s it. Apparently the Romney campaign’s minister can’t even accomplish that simple task. When this impromptu photo opportunity was starting to develop the minister should have asked some very basic questions such as whether or not Ryan would be able to actually help the soup kitchen. If Ryan came too late to actually help the photo opportunity would be meaningless because it would become public information that the man didn’t actually do anything. In that case the campaign should have just kept rolling and not have bothered going to the kitchen. If Ryan came early enough to help then the minister would have to inform Ryan that he would actually have to help otherwise it would become public information that he did nothing.

This fiasco was a very elementary mistake for a propaganda minister to make. Even an amateur should have caught this and forbidden Ryan from entering that soup kitchen after the patrons had left and everything had been cleaned up. Romney’s campaign really needs to take some lessons from Obama’s campaign. Obama has hired some of the slickest propagandists out there that do some absolutely amazing work. They do such an excellent job that they still have many people who supported Obama during the last election because of his anti-war platform supporting him again even though he’s proven himself to be a complete war monger.

If Romney wants to win the election he needs to get somebody who can propagandize effectively. There are only three weeks left before the election but a really great propagandist could still help pull off a victory by raising Romney and Ryan’s status in the public eye.

We Were Never at War with the So-Called Jihadists

We were never at war with so-called jihadists, we were always at war with Eastasia. Don’t be alarmed by the fact that your government is giving arms to so-called jihadists:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry.

This really makes you wonder what the United States’s interest in toppling the Syrian regime is. What is it about the Syrian regime that makes them so increadibly dangerous that America is willing to arm the same groups that it claims are a threat to the American people? Is the Syrian regime more brutal than the theocratic regimes that have been filling power vacuums left in the Middle East as of late? As it currently stands the Syrian constitution requires the president to be Muslim but doesn’t establish Islam as the state’s religion. In fact it has the following to say:

Citizens are equal in rights and duties, without discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language,religion or creed.

Would the situation in Syria improve if a more theocratic regime gained power? Historically such a thing is extremely rare. In general more theocratic states end up being more tyrannical and use whatever religion they claim to believe in as justification for solidifying their power. I would argue that it’s unlikely that America is arming so-called jihadists for the benefit of the Syrian people. On the other hand Syria is on the border of Iran and would make a great launching point for any war against Iran. That’s something to consider.

That Race Card is Wearing Thin

I really hate it when accusations of racism are used as a generic method of silencing opposition. Take this conversation that I had with a friend on Facebook:

The test on the picture seemed to imply that anybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are doing because of the man’s race. What bothers me about such an accusation is that there is no evidence to back it up. Without the ability to read minds one cannot know for certain what another is thinking. Yet one must consider the number of reasons one could oppose Obama. Obama is a very loathsome human being. He was swept into office on the promises of reducing the police state, ending Bush’s wars, shutting down Guantanamo Bay, and restoring many of the civil liberties that were lost when the state implemented tyrannical laws after the 9/11 attacks. After getting into office Obama has expanded the police state, continued Bush’s wars and started some of his own, kept Guantanamo Bay open, took more civil liberties from Americans, and even managed to find time to outright murder two American citizens without even pretending to hold a trial. As you can see there are many reasons to oppose Obama that have absolutely nothing to do with his race.

Yet some of his supporters continue to play the race card. This faction of Obama supporters like to take pictures such as the one shared by my friend and use it as evidence that everybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are racists. What’s funny is that we don’t even know if the person who defaced that sign was a racists. It very well could have been a racist or it could have been an Obama supporter attempting to make his political opponents look bad. There is no proof either way and even if there was it would prove nothing about the majority of people who don’t support Obama.

Obama’s supporters need to put the race card away unless there is a provable case of racism. If a member of the Ku Klux Klan argues against Obama because of his race then the race card is applicable. The race card is not applicable every time somebody criticizes Obama. Furthermore the race card should not be played against individuals who are entirely uninvolved in any racist acts. Trying to imply everybody who opposes Obama is a racist because one of Obama’s opponents is a racist is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to silence those who hold a different political viewpoint.

Why Hobbes was Wrong About the Necessity of the State

When an anarchist brings up the idea of abolishing the state around a statist they are usually met with a very Hobbesian argument. They claim that without the state humans would become vicious beasts roaming the world with the purposes of raping, killing, and stealing. Such a claim is absurd by its very nature:

Now, setting aside the fact that anarchism does not imply an absence of law or defense, and setting aside the fact that Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature are completely ridiculous, just consider how interesting their claim was in that particular situation. Five armed men sitting in a field dozens and dozens of miles from a police officer having a civil chat about anarchism without any one of us trying to rape, rob or kill any of the others is a rather remarkable thing if Thomas Hobbes is right about human nature. Equally interesting is the fact that none of us feared or even contemplated the possibility of being raped, robbed or killed by anyone out there in the wilds of the Colorado plains that day. Like Coloradoans of the 19th century, we met scores of armed men over the course of the day, none of which we personally knew, and yet it never even crossed any of our minds to be concerned for our chastity, our wealth or our lives.

If the state is the only thing keeping humanity from barbarism then humans should revert to barbarism when away from the state’s influence, right? This isn’t the case as noted by the millions of hunters that have managed to leave the state’s sphere of influence, with guns no less, and return home safely. Shouldn’t lumberjacks working far from civilization carve each other up with chainsaws? How can shipping vessels traverse the vast expanses of the ocean without the crews murdering or raping each other? Wouldn’t astronauts kill one another since they’re completely beyond the reach of the state?

The primary failure of the Hobbesian idea that humans are naturally barbarous is that it requires ignoring the fact humans developed societies in the first place. If humans were naturally uncooperative how did they cooperate enough to form societies? Humans predate states therefore people of the ancient world must have avoided murdering one another in the absence of states long enough to form tribes, villages, and eventually cities. This fact alone demonstrates the fallacious nature of Hobbes’s claim.

Propagandizing the People to Support War

Interesting research has arisen that demonstrates humans become more dogmatic when they are shown evidence of destruction:

In a series of studies, students who were shown pictures of destroyed buildings — as opposed to fully intact or under-construction buildings — responded to queries with more dogmatic attitudes and greater support for military action against Iran, according to Kenneth E. Vail III of the University of Missouri-Columbia, who conducted the studies with a team of researchers from Missouri, Virginia and Colorado.

[…]

Since destruction breeds dogmatism, Vail says, it’s conceivable that visual reminders of terrorist attacks and other violent disasters have shaped the psyche of Americans in the shadow of 9/11. Have we been primed for a confrontation?

“Over the past 10 to 12 years or so, we saw some pretty blatant demonstrations of that tactic,” he says. “Both politicians and the media [tend] to replay and display images and footage from those sorts of events when they’re trying to push various policies and/or military campaigns.”

It appears that humans can be provoked into course of action if they are propagandized with images of destruction. Obviously the war mongers have been aware of this idea for some time as they often use the tactic in order to build support for war. Take Syria for example, it’s obvious that many war mongers are interested in a war with Syria. President Obama has gone so far as to put American troops in harm’s way with the apparent desire to instigate a war with Syria. An Austrian newspaper was caught photoshopping an image with the only plausible reason being to propagandize people against Syria:

VIENNA, Austria — Austrian newspaper publisher Christoph Dichand apologized after Kronen Zeitung was caught using a faked dramatic photograph of a family fleeing Syria’s civil war-torn city Aleppo.

The picture – published in the country’s biggest selling Kronen Zeitung (Krone) newspaper – shows a father cradling a child with a woman in a hijab beside him as they hurry through what appears to be the bombed out ruins of the city. It was being used to illustrate a story on people fleeing the city as government forces clash with rebels.

But sharp-eyed bloggers at the social news website Reddit noticed that while the family image was genuine, the background had been photoshopped.

Considering the findings of the previously mentioned research and the apparent desire of America and many European countries to instigate a war with Syria it’s easy to understand why the image was photoshopped. We return to the fact that states require popular support in order to continue. The overall population of a country far outnumbers the number of goons employed by the state so the possibility of the people rising up and overthrowing the current rulers is always there. In order to prevent this the state feeds up propaganda meant to either instill love of the state or fear of others. If we fear others then it’s easy for the state to justify its existence; it can claim it’s necessary in order to protect the state’s people from the others.

When you see reports of atrocities occurring in other nations ask yourself whether or not the state you live under has a vested interest in warring with the accused state. If there appears to be a vested interest in a war you must dig deeper because you may find out that the photograph showing a bombed out city is nothing more than a fabrication.

We Should Address Real Voter Fraud

We’re being told that voter fraud is rampent. In Minnesota there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if passed, would require voters in the state to present state issued photographic identification in order to vote. Minnesota Republicans have been blaming two of their highest profile losses on voter fraud. I’m here to tell you that voter fraud is a real threat, it is happening, but it’s happening in the courtroom not at the polling places:

Around the country, Republican operatives have been making moves to keep Mr. Johnson from becoming their version of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate whose relatively modest support cut into Al Gore’s 2000 vote arguably enough to help hand the decisive states of Ohio and Florida to George W. Bush.

The fear of Mr. Johnson’s tipping the outcome in an important state may explain why an aide to Mr. Romney ran what was effectively a surveillance operation into Mr. Johnson’s efforts over the summer to qualify for the ballot at the Iowa State Fair, providing witnesses to testify in a lawsuit to block him that ultimately fizzled.

Libertarians suspect it is why Republican state officials in Michigan blocked Mr. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline.

And it is why Republicans in Pennsylvania hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive in Philadelphia, appearing at the homes of paid canvassers and, in some cases, flashing an F.B.I. badge — he was a retired agent — while asking to review the petitions they gathered at $1 a signature, according to testimony in the case and interviews.

The Republican Party has been doing its best to prevent Gary Johnson from appearing on the ballots just as the Democratic Party previously attempted to do to Ralph Nader. Both major parties have a history of actively trying to prevent potential competition from being valid options in presidential races.

What’s more fraudulent, a potential handful of individuals voting multiple times or major political parties actively trying to silence those who oppose them? I would say the latter. Preventing candidates from appearing on ballots not only takes votes away from those candidates but it also disenfranchises supporters of those candidates. If you believe the voting system is how an individual expresses their desire during an election and Gary Johnson is prevented from appearing on the ballots how can a libertarian express his or her desire during the presidential election? They can’t. Doesn’t that effectively cheat libertarians out of expressing their desire in this system where everybody supposedly has a voice?

If you want to address voter fraud look no further than these tactics being used by the two major political parties to silence third party candidates. Entire blocks of the voting public are being prevented from expressing their desires during the election.

The Real 2012 Presidential Debates

The second presidential debate will be airing tonight. Needless to say I’m not going to be watching it. If I wanted to watch an idiot debate a mirror I could walk into my bathroom and scream at myself. Instead of wasting your time with the presidential debate I encourage you to watch the rap versions of the presidential debates. They’re far more entertaining and, unlike the actual presidential debates, you may actually learn something:

“Don’t let this war is peace price deceive you, I bombed a whole heap of people to pieces and my first term ain’t even completed,” has to be one of the best lines ever written regarding the presidential race.

The second video is pretty good as well: