Chronicling the depravities of the State.
I want to keep my money
And give away absolutely nothing
To the government who moderates my spending
and obliterates depending on what time of the year
brutality is near
That’s right, tax season is upon us. To celebrate this most disgusting time of the year I think it’s appropriate to start the week off with Dethharmonic:
Ross Ulbricht, the man accused of being the operator of the original Silk Road, just demonstrated how effective he is at trolling. Facing charges of money laundering Mr. Ulbricht is now using the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) ruling that Bitcoin is property and not currency against them:
The IRS recently ruled that Bitcoin is property, not a “monetary instrument.” And now the attorney for alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht is arguing that his client must be innocent of money laundering because Bitcoin officially isn’t money, reports Wired.
I think that’s a very good defense. How can one launder money using Bitcoin, which has been ruled by the IRS as not being money? That question was hypothetical because we all know that the state doesn’t actually have to follow its own laws when prosecuting people. I’m sure the state will perform the mental gymnastics necessary to continue this case.
You have to hand it to the Supreme Court, or as my friends and I like to call them the Nazgûl, they serve their master well. Whenever a law interferes with agents of the federal government the Supreme Court is there to rule that law unconstitutional. Any law that helps agents of the federal government, even if the law requires people to buy something from one of the federal government’s numerous corporate partners, is ruled constitutional.
For a while there has been a thorn in the side of federal politicians. This thorn was a cap put on the amount of money that organizations and individuals could contribute to federal campaigns. I’m using the past tense because the Supreme Court has ruled such caps unconstitutional:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the role money plays in American politics.
The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, was sort of a sequel to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to disturb the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.
Judging by what I’ve read so far there are quite a few people upset at this ruling. But I’m not. Anybody who has been paying attention to money as it relates to politics already knows that campaign contribution caps were mythical. The laws merely required individuals wanting to send more money to federal campaigns to play by a slightly different set of rules. This ruling is a formality that simply removed a thin veil of deceit that made people believe there was actually some form of limit organizations and individuals to contribute to political campaigns.
For those of you who are upset by the Supreme Court’s ruling just remember that the Nazgûl are merely slaves to the One Ring.
Political discussions, in general, annoy me. This is due to multiple factors including the rapidity in which emotions turn a perfectly civil conversation into a yelling match. But the factor that probably annoys me the most is how the definition of words and phrases are in constant flux.
A phrase that is finding more use in political discussions if victim blaming. Victim blaming occurs when an individual attempts to blame the victim of a crime. At least that’s what it used to mean. Today victim blaming can be more aptly said to occur whenever an individual mentions a combination of the victim and something the other individual doesn’t like. Case in point, self-defense.
As an advocate of self-defense I advocate individual learn defensive skills. Defensive skills is a topic that is so vast that volumes of books have been written on it. But the what seems to be the most controversial skill that I advocate is learning how to use a firearm and obtaining a carry permit (if you’re unfortunate enough to be in a state that requires such nonsense to carry a gun). Lately I’ve been running into people who have begun accusing me of victim blaming when I advocate individuals learn self-defense skills. The conversations usually follow a similar pattern to this:
Some Dude: “We have to find a way to stop rapes.”
Me: “Agreed. I think raising the cost of attempting a rape would help.”
Some Dude: “Damn right. Let’s put rapists in jail for life!”
Me: “Jail only comes into play after the crime has been committed. I think it would be better to make rape more difficult to commit.”
Some Dude: “Right. More jail.”
Me: “I think encouraging more people to learn how to use a firearm and carry one would go much further. Knowing that attempting to commit a rape would carry with it a high probability of getting shot would go a long way as a deterrent.”
Some Dude: “Typical gun nut. You expect the victim to take responsibility. You probably tell women that they were raped because the clothes they were wearing were too slutty.”
Me: “I’ve never once said that nor do I think that…”
Some Dude: “Shut the fuck up. I’m not going to waste my time talking to somebody who blames victims.”
This brings me to the point of this post. There is a big difference between victim blaming and preparedness advocacy. The former involves blaming the victim of a crime for that crime happening whereas the latter involves preparing for the potential of a bad situation occurring.
Self-defense advocacy is a form of preparedness advocacy. It assumes that there are bad individuals in the world and one should have a plan for dealing with them. When I advocate for more people carrying firearms I’m not saying that anybody who doesn’t carry a firearm is to blame if they are the victim of a violent crime. What I am saying is that one can reduce their chances of being a victim of a violent crime if they have a means of defending themselves against violent criminals.
The perpetrator of a violent crime is always the one at fault. It was entirely within that individual’s power to decide whether or not to commit that violent crime. A target of a violent crime is not at fault because it wasn’t within their power to decided whether or not that crime would be committed. What self-defense advocacy says is that individuals who are targets of violent crime stand a better chance of mitigating harm when they are able to fight back.
Victim blaming, which is a real problem, is an idea quickly being cheapened because a handful of individuals are using it as a blanket argument against anything that disagrees with their ideology.
There’s nothing for you to see today and you can blame E. E. Knight for it. Baltic Gambit, the latest novel from the Vampire Earth series, was released yesterday and I spent a good chunk of the evening reading it instead of blogging. So far the book has been great so if you’re looking for something to read (which I’m assuming you are because you’re here) I recommend acquiring a copy.
Anybody who has sent an e-mail to my blog account knows that my response times are seldom speedy. I usually don’t touch my e-mail in any regard over the weekend so last night when I finally got around to checking the weekend’s e-mails I was surprised. Normally I get two or three e-mails on my blog account over the weekend but this weekend I received 43. 40 of these were from people who are apparently very upset with me. What I find most interesting about this slew of e-mails is that the accusations don’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Here are some of the more entertaining messages I received (poor grammar preserved for LULZ):
I found you nazi shitbag.
I don’t like nazi shit bags. You think you can write about white rights and get away with it? I’m going to call your host and have your site removed!!!! What do you have to say about that you piece of shit?
Um… good luck?
Hey you mens rights fuckhead, we know who you are. We don’t tolerate misogynists in Minneapolis. We’re going to burn your fucking house down.
Well that’s not very nice. Also, mens’ rights? I’m kind of curious where that accusation stems from.
You scumsucking shitforbrains. Im going to kill you you fascist piece of shit.
I’m sorry sir or ma’am but it appears as though there is a line forming to kill me. If you will take a number I’ll help you as soon as possible.
You think your so smart but we know where you live. You either take down this blog or we’re going to take you out. You have been warned.
Take me out where? I do enjoy Chinese food. Can we go somewhere that serves General Tso’s chicken?
Hey Christopher Burg,
Do you think you and spread your Nazi filth without getting your ass kicked? We’re going to put you in an oven and roast you alive. I hope you have your will in order.
I don’t recall writing any form of Nazi propaganda on this site. In fact, as an anarchist, I probably hate Nazis more than the most zealous social justice crusader. Also, as a word of warning, burning flesh and hair smells awful. Seriously, pluck a few hairs from your head and light them on fire then take a whiff. Do you really want to be smelling that for the several hours?
Christopher Burg,
Your a sexist racist nazi asshole. I take pleasure in killing sick fucks like you. I know where you live and I’m going to get you when you least expect it. When I do I’m going to start by skinning you slowly. I will take a strip of skin off of you with a vegetable peeler once an hour. Then I’m going to hang you from your arms and light a fire under your feet so they burn. Then I’m going to pour vinegar in your wounds. Then I’m going to make you drink rubbing alcohol until your insides turn to must. Then I’m going to finish it off by covering you in gasoline and lighting you on fire.
There are several things worth noting here. First, the art of closing a written message is dead. Not a single angry e-mail concluded with “Sincerely”, “Yours truly”, “I hope you die”, or anything like that. This saddens me. Second, I really need to put ads up on this site so I can make some money off of these people. I assume that they visited my site before sending off their angry e-mails but I can’t be sure since the accusations really don’t jive with the articles I’ve written. Third, the art of intimidation, like the art of closing a written message, is dead. Before the days of the Internet people at least had the courtesy of sending a letter composed of individual letters cut out of newspaper and magazine articles and pasted to the sheet of paper. Sometimes if they really wanted to intimidate you they would nail a burlap sack containing a dead cat or severed horse head to your door. Now people are lazy and just send angry e-mails. People need to own their anger and take pride in it. Fourth, starting each successive sentence with the same word is dull. Take a look at the last letter. It’s all “Then I’m going to do this” and “Then I’m going to do this”. There’s nothing more disappointing than a grammatically lazy death threat.
But I think the most important thing that needs to be pointed out is how disappointed I am in my newfound fan base. I partially attribute my disappointment to the shorter attention span most Americans have today. But if you are angry enough to write a death threat to somebody you should at least have the decency to perform a followup. According to the timestamps the vast majority of angry e-mails were sent on Friday. A few more came in on Saturday and only two of the e-mails came in on Sunday. There wasn’t a single e-mail from yesterday. Talk about a lack of dedication. If my newfound fan base was truly dedicated to hating my guts I could have had posting material for several days. But they’re lazy so I really only have enough material for a single post, which means I will have to actually look for things to write about.
Before I close this post I have a favor to ask of my newly found fan base. If one of you would be so kind as to inform me of the specific post that made you so upset I would greatly appreciate it. That way I can write more of the same. Then you can continue your feed on your impotent rage and I can stick some ads up on this site and make a little money. It would be a mutually beneficial relationship.
You have to love the legislators here in Minnesota. Even though the transportation infrastructure is in a severe state of disrepair, the electronic pull tabs that were supposed to fund the tax victim’s part of the new Vikings stadium didn’t, and local legislative campaigns are going way up in costs our legislators manage to find the time to deal with the really important issues.
On the table today is the issue of teens using tanning booths. Minnesota’s dear leaders are looking to pass a bill that would make it illegal for people under 18 to use tanning beds:
At a time when melanoma cases are rising sharply in Minnesota, lawmakers appear poised to pass legislation that would ban anyone under 18 from using tanning equipment.
The rate of melanoma cases is increasing and it is due to teens are making more frequent uses of tanning beds. I know this because the government wouldn’t be so stupid as to jump to such a major conclusion without acquiring such facts. Legislators would never introduce such a prohibition based on speculation.
To substantiate whether tanning beds might be behind the increase in melanoma cases, the health department added some tanning questions to the Minnesota Student Survey conducted last year.
The survey showed that one in three 11th grade girls reported that they tanned indoors in the last year. Among those tanning bed users, Korn said more than half reporting tanning indoors more than 10 times that year.
Or they could be doing exactly that. A single survey given to teens about tanning, which has no historical data to go on, is the justification being used to prohibit teens from using tanning beds. Does the increasing rate of melanoma cases correlate to an increase rate of teens using tanning beds? Who fucking knows. That’s not what is important. What is important is that there is an increased rate in melanoma cases and that means we have to do something!
People sometimes ask me, “Chris, how can you be an anarchist?” So here it is, Christopher Burg’s three step program to becoming an anarchist:
Let’s apply this three step program to the melanoma problem:
If you can understand the three step process above then you can apply it to other laws that have been or are being passed by legislators. You will likely find that almost all of the laws being passed don’t make sense for your life and therefore the people passing those laws shouldn’t be running your life. After that you can freely consider yourself an anarchist.