Month: October 2014

Another Shooting in Missouri

There was another shooting in Missouri. Once again it was a white cop, working as a private security agent at the time, who shot a black teenager. But this time the teenager wasn’t unarmed and apparently exchanged fire with the officer:

An off-duty police officer in St Louis, Missouri, has fatally shot a black teenager, leading to angry demonstrations on the streets.

The white officer was on patrol for a private security company when he exchanged fire with an 18-year-old after a chase, say police.

He fired 17 shots at the teenager, police added.

Obviously very little concrete evidence has been released regarding this shooting as it is very recent. I bring it up primarily because this situation is an example of a no win situation. Assuming the story is being reported accurately, the officer came under fire after pursuing the teenager and returned fire. On the one hand returning fire is a smart thing to do when somebody is shooting at you. On the other hand any incident in Missouri of a white cop shooting a black teenager is going to cause civil unrest as the memory of the incident in Ferguson is still on everybody’s mind.

It’s not uncommon for people to concoct self-defense scenarios and plan for a way to survive them. But sometimes there is no winning. That is something we should all come to understand and accept.

Assisted Suicide in the News Again After a Long Absence

I haven’t seen assisted suicide as a headline news item since the last trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. With the announcement that a woman by the name of Brittany Maynard is planning to commit suicide on the first of next month I am again seeing the often heated debate over whether or not assisted suicide is proper return. This story is timely for me because I’ve been reading a book on seppuku, which is Japanese ritual suicide for those who do not know.

The big questions people seem to be debating is whether she is going to die with dignity, acting cowardly, or making a horrible decision. It is not my place to judge such matters, my interest is more clinical.

Here in the United States suicide carries a similar stigma as mental health. That is to say the often held believe in the United States is that suicidal people are weak or otherwise less noble than other people. This isn’t a constant in all cultures though. Seppuku, for example, was often viewed as a good way to die. Often times this was because seppuku was a way for a samurai to prevent his family status from being taken or deny his opponent the satisfaction in killing him. But a common thread that seems to run through seppuku is the desire to take control of one’s fate.

She has terminal brain cancer and faces a lingering and painful death. Based on the interviews I’ve read Brittney also sees suicide as a way to take control of her fate. This attitude seems rather foreign to many people who are discussing this story but if you study enough history you will see that it’s an attitude that pops up in several cultures. And it’s an attitude that I sympathize with. I have often said that if I am faced with a painful death that is likely to linger for some time I would probably choose a better way to die (maybe find some two-bit shitbag human trafficker or similar scum and go after him in a almost certain to be suicidal attack). So I understand her motives and can’t argue against her decision. On the other hand I also find it interesting reading arguments against her decision. Regardless this is a complex issue with no objective correct solution, which is kind of ironic because so many people seem to believe they have the absolute correct answer.

As an aside, one of the criticisms I see commonly brought up is that she will be putting her family to a great deal of pain by going through with her suicide. I don’t really get that since they will be suffering a great deal of pain whether she commits suicide or not. The main difference is that her committing suicide will likely reduce the extent of her family’s pain. Anybody who has had to witness a family member suffering a lingering and painful death knows that the pain of watching them suffer is extensive and their death almost comes as a relief.

Don’t Be Stupid and Other Observations By Captain Obvious

Opponents of open carry often claim that anybody who open carries a gun will have it taken from them by an attacker. After a lot of huffing and puffing they finally have an example to point to:

William Coleman III was robbed of his Walter- brand P22 just after 2:00 a.m. October 4 in Gresham by a young man who asked him for it — and flashed his own weapon as persuasion.

Coleman, 21, was talking to his cousin in the 17200 block of NE Glisan St., after purchasing the handgun earlier that day, when a young man asked him for a cigarette, police said.

The man then asked about the gun, pulled a gun from his own waistband and said “”I like your gun. Give it to me.”

Coleman handed over the gun and the man fled on foot.

Now opponents of open carry can feel justified for all of the time they spend bitching, moaning, and whining about how terrible openly carrying a firearm is. Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media covered most of the important points to take away from this story. I do, however, have one point to add.

I took to Google Maps to verify that the location mentioned in the story was a residential area. It is. Although that’s not super important to what I’m going to say it’s a worthwhile criteria point to mention. The big red flag, to me, is that the thief asked to bum a cigarette. Asking to bum a cigarette, begging for some change, or approaching somebody and asking for directions are common tricks thieves and other violent criminals use to close the gap between themselves and their intended prey without, they hope, raising any red flags. Because of this these things should all raise immediate red flags. If you’re standing at a house at 02:00 and somebody starts walking up to you asking for a cigarette you should immediately be on the defensive. It’s not common, in my experience at least, for random strangers to walk up to people in residential areas and ask them for a cigarette. That kind of behavior is more common at bars where people are grouped together and smoking.

When you’re suspicious of a person you should also be very watchful of their hands. According to the story the thief drew his gun from concealment. The moment a suspicious man’s hands being moving towards a potential weapon your hands should probably begin moving towards your weapon. Especially when you’re advertising that you are in possession of a valuable object such as a firearm. In most cases a person openly carrying a firearm should be able to draw their firearm quicker than a person carrying concealed. At least if they’re paying attention.

While there are times when I open carry I prefer to carry concealed for the same reason I prefer not to have my phone visible when walking around; I don’t like to advertise being in possession of highly sought after items. Guns, like iPhones, are highly sought after by thieves. If you’re open carrying you’re advertising not only an ability to defend yourself but also that you possess something worth stealing. Hence you need to also need to be aware of your surrounding. Not only must you be aware of your surroundings but you must project the fact that you are aware of your surroundings. Thieves usually rely on distraction. They tend to prey on individuals who are distracted and avoid individuals who are obviously aware of what’s going on around them. Although I can’t be sure I believe it’s fairly safe to assume that the victim in this story wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to what was going on around him.

Civil Forfeiture Laws Apparently Cover Your Identity

The war on unpatentable drugs has seen the state sink to lower and lower levels in its pursuit to arrest anybody who might challenge their corporate pharmaceutical partner’s monopolies. Civil forfeiture laws are one of the lowest levels. But it seems that civil forfeiture laws don’t just cover cash and cars. If you are suspected of being involved in a drug crime or charged with a drug crime the state can now confiscate your identity:

The Justice Department is claiming, in a little-noticed court filing, that a federal agent had the right to impersonate a young woman online by creating a Facebook page in her name without her knowledge. Government lawyers also are defending the agent’s right to scour the woman’s seized cellphone and to post photographs — including racy pictures of her and even one of her young son and niece — to the phony social media account, which the agent was using to communicate with suspected criminals.

All this, the start argues, is legal and moral as is anything that helps it fight the war on unpatentable drugs. As Radley Balko points out the state is effectively arguing that it can put people individual in very real danger if it means catching drug offenders:

The DOJ filing was in response to Arquiett’s lawsuit. Consider what the federal government is arguing here. It’s arguing that if you’re arrested for a drug crime, including a crime unserious enough to merit a sentence of probation, the government retains the power to (a) steal your identity, (b) use that identity for drug policing, thus making your name and face known to potentially dangerous criminals, (c) interact with those criminals while posing as you, which could subject you to reprisals from those criminals, (d) expose photos of your family, including children, to those criminals, and (e) do all of this without your consent, and with no regard for your safety or public reputation.

It’s funny, in a twisted way, how fervent the state has been in fighting its war on drugs at the expense of its reputation (it’s hard to believe now but before the war on drugs the state had a much higher reputation), the lives of the citizenry, and having to arm almost every police department with enough equipment to qualify them as military forces in most countries. However it can barely find the time, and often can’t, to protect the people, which we continue to hear is the primary job of the state (which is laughable to say the least).

Technology is Trumping Statism Again

Regardless of the laughable claims made by an author at Daily Kos, market anarchism is showing how practical its rhetoric is once again. This time the place is Venezuela, the problem is currency controls and economic collapse, and the solution is Bitcoin:

(Reuters) – Tech-savvy Venezuelans looking to bypass dysfunctional economic controls are turning to the bitcoin virtual currency to obtain dollars, make Internet purchases — and launch a little subversion.

Two New York-based Venezuelan brothers hope this week to start trading on the first bitcoin exchange in the socialist-run country, which already has at least several hundred bitcoin enthusiasts.

While the Venezuelan government continues its attempt to control its population through economic controls its power is quickly fading as its economy collapses and more people turn to the “black” market for basic necessities. This is similar to what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Once the state’s controls have been circumvented its death is inevitable.

Decentralized Coding Schools

I’m a big fan of decentralized systems. One of the greatest benefits of the Internet, in my opinion, is how it decentralized access to information. You no longer have to go to a library to acquire a research article or attend a university to learn the fundamentals of scientific fields. While having access to information is much of the battle qualified instruction is extremely useful. To that end a group of hackers have proposed a really neat method for instructors to teach programming skills without having to rely on centralized universities:

The idea is that if you’re planning to work on some programming tutorials at, say, your local coffee shop, you’ll announce when and where on Hackvard, and other aspiring programmers will show up and join you—regardless of what languages they’re learning or what materials they’re using. When you have some time to learn, you can check to site to see if anyone nearby has announced a gathering. These events could lead to the formation of ongoing study groups, or they could just be one-off gatherings. The point is just to get people together, so they can support each other as they learn the craft.

I think this could be useful not just for teaching programming but as a system where already skilled programmers can help each other excel even more. Sometimes the hardest part about learning programming or continuing your education in programming is finding other people who share your interest and have the skills necessary to assist you. Hopefully this idea does well or, if it doesn’t, inspires an even better idea.

Laugh as Daily Kos Recognizes How Powerless Its Precious State Really Is

A milling machine specifically designed to complete 80% AR lowers was released and sold out? Quick, call in the gun control loons! Daily Kos, one of the more prevalent publications serving the market of hysterical pants shitters has caught news of Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner and its phenomenal sales, which means it had to release an article explaining why the sky is falling and we’re all going to die:

I suggest you read the articles linked. It is both interesting and frightening. It really illuminates the sophomoric pseudo-intellectual flaws of the libertarian movement. It also shows that the practicality of their anti-government rhetoric is non-existent. On the one hand, they are democratizing gun ownership, and on the other, they are creating a world that is willfully deaf to all of the damage guns have done and continue to do.

Actually the linked articles, which describe the release of the Ghost Gunner and the fact that it sold out within 36 hours, illuminates the effectiveness of the ideas proposed by market anarchists within the libertarian movement. It certainly illuminates the practicality of our anti-government rhetoric.

Case in point, the release of this invention, which was developed by a handful of individuals, rendered gun control meaningless. Anybody can buy an 80% lower and anybody can buy a Ghost Gunner. That renders every gun control law on the books irrelevant. And if the laws are changed and the sale of 80% lowers is prohibited then an improved Ghost Gunner can be released that turns out completed lowers from solid blocks of aluminum. If laws are passed that prohibit the sale of milling machines then we will build them ourselves from commonly available parts.

Market anarchism often focuses on technical solutions for solving the problem of statism. The Ghost Gunner has solved the problem of the state deciding who can and cannot own an effective means of self-defense. Tor hidden services have solved the problem of the state deciding what can be posted on the Internet. Bitcoin has solved the problem of the state deciding what kinds of products can be traded amongst individuals. Cryptography continues the solve the problem of the state snooping through communications in an attempt to silence the disobedient. It has been becoming apparent for some time that market anarchism works. As a corollary to that market anarchism also demonstrates that statism can’t last.

Sorry (OK, I’m not actually sorry) statists but your precious state is powerless. Liberty is winning now that many of its proponents are no longer playing your stupid political games.

Dividing the Country Into Equally Populated States

Slate, surprising as it is, actually has an interesting article about various shapes the individual states within the United States would look if they were divided up in such a way that each one was equally populated. The article is mostly a bunch of neat looking graphics showing how the states would look if the population of this country was divided out in different ways.

But what I really liked is the idea of dividing states in a way that ensues each one has the same population. In fact it’s an idea I’m entirely behind. I believe this country should be divided up in such a way that there are approximately 316.1 million different states. As the population increases so will the number of states. This will ensure that each individual is their own state so we can do away with all of this stupid concepts of subservience to rulers.

Michael Bloomberg Gets Labeled Lower Nobility by Royalty

Michael Bloomberg, being the gun control psychotic at the top of the heap, gets a lot of press on gun blogs such as this. The man is a tyrant and views himself as a king. So it must have really deflated his ego when the Queen of England labeled him a knight:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) can add a new title to his name — he’s been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.

[…]

The British Embassy says the distinction was in recognition of Bloomberg’s “prodigious entrepreneurial and philanthropic endeavours, and the many ways in which they have benefited the United Kingdom and the UK-US special relationship.”

The common belief this day and age is that receiving a knighthood from the British royalty is one hell of an honor. For most people it probably is. But for somebody like Bloomberg it has to be a slap in the face. Let me explain. Historically a knighthood was a title of lower nobility. Receiving the title meant that you were now in a position where you were expected to fight and die for the actual nobility. Bloomberg, if you pay attention to the words that come out of his mouth, views himself as a king, or at the very least a duke. The Queen of England just said that he isn’t a duke or even a measly baron. He’s just a knight and his place is to die for everybody above him.

In other words Bloomberg didn’t receive a whole lot other than a kick in the fact and, if he’s smart enough to realize what he actually received, a strike against his ego.

Fun with Medieval Weaponry

I enjoy learning how to use a katana. In fact I enjoy it so much I plunked down too much money to buy one (although, granted, it’s not sharp but the point is a nasty little bitch). When I discuss that I’m learning how to use a katana with friends their first reaction is usually to ask why (and insinuating that there’s no point and my time is being wasted). Obviously a katana, like any medieval weapon, is pretty lame when compared to modern day lead throwers. But once in a while I come across a story that proves that medieval weapons are still effective at what they do:

Morgan Jr. says McGowan entered his home through a window.

Morgan Jr. says he reached for the spear which he keeps close to his bed.

“This door is open within five seconds, probably within three seconds; this door was open and he was standing no more than two to three feet away from me,” Morgan Jr. says. “I looked at him, I didn’t see any weapons however I was terrified.”

Morgan Jr. says he was able to stab McGowan once.

Polearms: fucking up people’s shit since forever. While a pointy stick may not be the epitome of weaponry today it can still wreck a day if you get within its range.

Oh, and to answer the question of why I’m learning how to use a katana, it’s because I’m a history nerd and the katana has always interested me as a weapon.