Chronicling the depravities of the State.
I’ve coined a new term, libertarian sharia.* Libertarian sharia states that a women should have a male escort at all libertarian events less they be hit on awkwardly by other attendees.
* I’m joking, guys. Don’t freak out.**
** Mostly joking.***
*** Eh, sort of joking?
I’m seldom surprised by Congress but this one made me take a step back. Congress has been entirely complicit in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance of the American people. I always imagined they would freak out if the same happened to them but it turns out they’re OK with being spied on. At least if Israel is doing the spying:
Israel is spying on the U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks? No problem, key Democrats and Republicans in Congress say. It’s just part of the game.
“I don’t look at Israel or any nation directly affected by the Iranian program wanting deeply to know what’s going on in the negotiations—I just don’t look at that as spying,” Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said. “Their deep existential interest in such a deal, that they would try to figure out anything that they could, that they would have an opinion on it… I don’t find any of that that controversial.”
I wonder if it’s possible of us lowly serfs to setup a deal with the Israeli government to have them spy on our government and give us nice itemized reports. It would certainly save a lot of potential whistle blowers from being caged like Manning or exiled like Snowden.
Between pervasive surveillance and never ending warfare this police state we live in more accurately resembles 1984 every day. But now we have doctors reenacting the scene where O’Brien tortures Winston until he finally sees five fingers instead of the four being held up. A woman was kidnapped by police, taken to a psychiatric ward, forcibly sedated, and held prisoner for eight days because she claimed that Obama followed her on Twitter:
The NYPD disagreed — they handcuffed her and sent her to the hospital.
According to the lawsuit Brock is filing, the “next thing you know, the police held onto me, the doctor stuck me with a needle and I was knocked out. I woke up to them taking off my underwear and then went out again. I woke up the next day in a hospital robe.”
She said she was heavily sedated by hospital employees, and she told The Daily News that she only mentioned to doctors that the president follows her on Twitter to show them “the type of person I am. I’m a good person, a positive person. Obama follows positive people.”
Instead, the lawsuit alleges the doctor made her discharge contingent upon her denying that Obama follows her on the social media site. According to her “master treatment plan,” one of the objectives that would trigger her release was that she “state that Obama is not following her on Twitter.”
Here’s the real kicker, Obama does follow her on Twitter. The police or doctors could have taken two minutes to verify her claims before forcibly sedating and detaining her. But, you know, that wouldn’t have been as much fun!
This story strikes several nerves with me. The biggest one being that police can drag somebody to a psychiatric ward, forcibly hold them down, and some sick fuck of a doctor will inject sedatives into them completely against their will. Another thing that pisses me off about this story is the doctors blatantly ignoring the claims of a woman who was being kidnapped. Just because a kidnapper wears a badge doesn’t mean due diligence can be ignore (in fact the presence of a badge should make one more skeptical of any claims being made). As you can imagine the fact that the only way the woman could escape her imprisonment was to sign a document that was a blatant lie. Oh, did I mention the fact that she was also billed for the privilege of being subjugated to this? Because she was:
In her lawsuit, Brock is attempting to recoup the $13,637.10 bill she received for her involuntary incarceration, as well as an unspecified amount of additional damages.
In the end this is just another example on a large pile of examples pointing to the fact that this country is a police state. Anybody who argues otherwise is entirely ignorant of what’s going on.
How could the United Police States of America possibly make police less accountable? By keeping their names secret for 60 days after shooting somebody, which is what Arizona is moving to do:
Critics call Senate Bill 1445 an attack on government transparency at a time when American police departments are trying to earn the public’s trust after a series of controversial shootings.
The bill would prevent law enforcement agencies statewide from releasing the names of police officers “involved in a use of deadly physical force incident that results in death or serious physical injury” for 60 days.
Why 60 days? Because that’s more than enough time for the story to fall off of the media’s radar. In fact 60 days is overkill since the media forgets about stories about two weeks after they happen in most cases. Regardless this bill would ensure that when people learn the identify of the shooter it will have little in the way of consequence. At most it will get a mention on the back page of a newspaper section under a generic title such as “Identify of police officer released.”
I guess bigotry is going to be the theme today. First Larry Pratt says Gun Owners of America is a Muslim-free zone and now I have an attorney that wants to make it legal to murder homosexuals:
An attorney from Huntington Beach, McLaughlin in late February spent $200 to propose a ballot measure that authorizes the killing of gays and lesbians by “bullets to the head,” or “any other convenient method.”
McLaughlin’s “Sodomite Suppression Act” now is testing the limits of free speech and raising the question: Why can’t the state’s initiative process screen out blatantly illegal ideas?
The Legislature’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus wrote a letter to the State Bar, asking for an investigation into McLaughlin’s fitness to practice law. More than 3,800 people signed a petition to State Bar President Craig Holden asking that McLaughlin lose his law license for advocating to “legalize the murder” of gays and lesbians.
The petition requests McLaughlin be disbarred for advocating to legalize murdering homosexuals. One could make an argument that McLaughlin has the right to free speech and this is merely an exercise of that right. However I see another reason for disbarring McLaughlin. I believe an attorney, in order to be considered competent, should demonstrate knowledge of legal matters. For example, an attorney should know what the legal definition of sodomy is. Sodomy, legally, is any act of anal or oral sex. But McLaughlin’s proposed law, which has sodomy in the title, is targeted specifically at homosexuals.
If McLaughlin doesn’t even understand the legal definition of sodomy yet feels inclined to write a law with sodomy in the title then he probably shouldn’t be practicing law. I’d also point out that he’s a fucking asshole but that’s never prevented anybody from practicing law.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is one of those organizations that gun rights activists seem to either love or hate. Those who love the organization do so because it positions itself as never compromising. Its detractors point out that GOA doesn’t have any notable influence.
My position, as an anarchist, is that all forms of gun control are an initiation of force by the state against the people. Any gun control law requires the threat of force so an act as simple as purchasing a suppressor, which is a piece of safety equipment in all honesty, without state approval can lead to a government agent murdering you (if, of course, you refuse to go along with them when they come to kidnap you). I also believe that everybody has the right to defend themselves. That goes for men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender individuals, Christian, atheist, Jews, and Muslims. GOA, on the other hand, believes that your religion dictates whether or not you have a right to self-defense.
In that interview, at the 15:50 mark, Larry Pratt says, “Guns Owners of America is a Muslim-free zone.” That’s a direct quote. He then goes on to claim that Muslims disarm everybody wherever they rule. Of course countries such as Iraq, which is ruled by Muslims, allows gun ownership under certain terms. Those terms aren’t that dissimilar to the terms set by many European countries that are ruled by Christians. Religion has little to do with gun ownership laws. Despots everywhere want their subjects disarmed.
In addition to being wrong Pratt also admits that GOA isn’t no compromise. The no compromise position would be that everybody has the right to own firearms. Period. But GOA doesn’t hold that position. It holds the position that if you’re Muslims you are undeserving of even participating in the political process of gun rights advocacy. Pratt is a bigot and has allowed his bigotry to pollute his gun rights organization.
If you are a member of GOA I would urge you to cease sending the organization money. Any gun rights organization that discriminates based on religion isn’t advocating for rights but mere privileges. Right now they’re discriminating against Muslims but later down the road they very well could discriminate against somebody else Pratt doesn’t personally approve of.
Edit: 2018-03-16: The original link to the interview is no longer available. However, the interview can still be heard here.
I received an e-mail over the weekend from an individual begging me to get involved in the 2016 presidential race. More specifically he wants me to get involved in the Republican Party. Normally I treat e-mails as confidential but I asked permission to post this one and my response publicly. My reason for this is that I’m lazy and want a link I can send anybody else that urges me to return to politics.
Here’s the e-mail:
Chris,
What happened man? You used to be a strong supporter of the second amendment. Now you say you’re out of politics. I urge you to come back. 2016 is going to be the most import election for gun rights. If Hillary gets in she’ll be appointing at least 2 supreme court justices. You know they won’t be progun. They’ll undo everything Heller won. We need everybody working the GOP. It doesn’t matter who they nominate. I don’t like Bush either but he’s better than Hillary. At least he’ll let us keep our guns.
I’m begging you to set your pride aside this one time. Not just for yourself but for all of us gun owners. If you don’t get involved none of us may have any guns after 2016.
My position as an anarchist means I won’t help anybody achieve power over other people. Some may say, “But Chris, there will be a ruler either way!” That’s true but it won’t be by my hand. However, in the spirit of being thorough, I will explain several other reasons why I won’t get involved in the 2016 presidential election.
As a gun owner and an advocate of the right of self-defense one may assume that by not getting involved in the 2016 presidential election, specifically within the Republican Party, I’m throwing gun owners under the bus for my own selfish ideology. Here’s the problem, if I were to help get a Republican president elected I would be throwing many of my other friends and principles under the bus.
Let’s start with my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender friends. Between the Republican Party’s push to prevent same-sex couples from marrying to it’s push to dictate what bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms transgender individuals can use there’s no way I could involve myself with that party without directly harming those I care about. I’m loyal to my friends and will not actively assist anybody who desires to oppress them.
Republicans also have an obsession with imaginary lines. I don’t believe people who obsess over imaginary things are in a sound enough state of mind to hold a position of authority. But the Republican Party is absolutely obsessed with preventing people born on the wrong side of the border from entering this country, at least without first submitting to an insanely difficult immigration process. What right does the state have to claim ownership over a landmass as large as the United States and go so far as to murder people who cross its stupid imaginary line? None. Yet the Republican Party seems to get its rocks off on the idea of using the state’s capacity for violence to prevent people from crossing its stupid little line in the sand.
Speaking of imaginary lines, the Republican Party not only wants to prevent people from crossing their line but it also wants to murder people on the other side of the line. It’s true that the Democratic Party shares in the Republican Party’s zeal for this, which means there’s no way to get involved with either party and not provide active support for murdering people in the Middle East.
Since the main topic is the Second Amendment let’s talk about the Fourth Amendment for a moment. The Republican Party has a well-earned reputation for being tough on “crime”. I put crime in quotes there because what they really mean is anybody who violates the arbitrary decrees of the state and a real crime requires a victim. This tough on “crime” position has caused the Republican Party to be major advocates of both the police state and surveillance of the citizenry. When you see a story of a cop murdering somebody for no reason chances are somebody high up in the Republican Party will excuse the behavior. They will certainly advocate for giving these violent cops more cell phone interceptors, armored personnel carriers, and other assets they can’t be trusted with. So long as we have an out of control police force there can be no protect against unlawful search and seizure so involving myself in the Republican Party would require me to shit all over the Fourth Amendment.
These are just a few of the reasons I won’t involve myself in Republican politics. You can claim I’m throwing gun owners under the bus but will just turn around and point out all of the people I’d have to throw under the bus to work within that party. If I’m not loyal to my friends then I’m not worth anything. Due to my diverse set of friends I can’t prevent some of them from getting fucked by whoever wins the presidential election but I can say that I didn’t provide material support to their oppressor. Being able to say I didn’t help my friends’ oppressors is the only way I can have a clean conscience.
Korpiklaani has a new album coming out and since they’re one of my favorite folk metal bands this has my excited. The band released the song Lempo as a preview and it kicks some major ass, which is why it’s this week’s Monday Metal pick:
The state is the worst discriminator of them all. While there are a lot of horrible bigoted assholes in the world they lack one thing the state has: the power to force others to discriminate. I can choose not to associate with a single bigoted asshole but if I refuse to discriminate in the manner decreed by the state I can face fines and/or be locked in a cage for years. Politicians in Florida have introduced legislation that would mandate discrimination but that state certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on such shenanigans. The French Parliament has introduced legislation that would require modeling agencies to discriminate against women who are deemed too thin by the arbitrary definitions of the state:
The French Parliament is debating legislation that would effectively set minimum weights for women and girls to work as models, a step that supporters of the bill say is necessary to combat the persistence of anorexia.
If it becomes law — it is backed by President François Hollande’s Socialist government — modeling agencies and fashion houses that employ models whose body mass index measurements do not meet minimum standards would face criminal penalties.
There are two points about this legislation I want to bring up. First it defines a minimum weight utilizing a stupid method. Body mass index (BMI) is a statistical index that doesn’t take any unique characteristics of an individual into consideration. For example, one of my friends is a body builder. He is pretty much the peak of male fitness. According to his BMI, which is calculated using only a person’s mass and height, he’s overweight because muscle weighs more than fat and he has a lot of muscle.
Second it legally requires modeling agencies to discriminate against individuals potentially suffering body image issues. Anorexia as a symptom of having a severely negative body image. As far as I know no mental health professional recommends discrimination as an effective treatment for any mental disorder. In fact I’m fairly certain that’s the exact opposite of what a mental health professional would recommend. If this legislation was actually about fighting anorexia it would do something different such as require modeling agencies to have a mental health professional interview applicants and offer assistance to those who are suffering a mental disorder (I’m not saying that’s a good idea, just something that would actually demonstrate a desire to help people with anorexia).
Turning this around a bit imagine if the legislation mandated discriminating against people who are labeled overweight based on their BMI. Would you find it acceptable if, say, restaurants were prohibited from hiring people whose BMI listed them as overweight? No (if you answered yes then you’re an asshole). So it shouldn’t be considered acceptable just because somebody falls into another defined category on the BMI.
Stupid shit like this is the result of looking to the state to solve a problem. Instead of solving the problem you end up having a bunch of politicians, who generally lack any training in fields related to the problem, making arbitrary decisions based on their political ideologies. Since almost every politician’s political ideology is fascism it means you always get legislation that decrees people obey or face punishment.
What’s the solution to all of this nation’s problem? More democracy! At least that’s what Obama seems to think:
President Obama on Wednesday suggested that if U.S. voters want to counter the outsized influence of money in politics, it might be a good idea to adopt mandatory voting.
“Other countries have mandatory voting,” Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. “It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything.”
Mandatory voting might have a transformative effect if ballots had an option to disband offices. But that option is never available so mandatory voting laws would just coerce you into choosing a master. And since money in politics shapes the ballots it’s already too late to counteract it by the time the polls open (but Obama isn’t an idiot, he already knows that). By the time you’ve gone to the polls the big money players have helped appoint nominees for the two major parties and electoral regulations severely limit what third-party candidates, if any, appear on the ballot (and they don’t have the money for a major media campaign anyways nor are they usually allowed into debates).
It doesn’t matter how many people vote because voting is just confirming the choices already curated for you by your overlords. Another comment by Obama points out another transformative effect of mandatory voting laws:
The president continued, “The people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities… There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”
The keywords here are lower income. Expropriating wealth from people who have little is difficult for the state to justify without looking like a complete asshole. Income and sales taxes don’t raise much money from people with little income to tax or buy things with. Civil forfeiture laws are limited in scope so can’t be applied across the entire demographic. But Australia has shown other states the way by fining people who fail to show up at polling places. Suddenly the state can justify expropriating more wealth from lower income people. It also knows that lower income people have a harder time getting to polling places since they often lack transportation, can’t get time off of work, etc. so the probability of getting to fine them under mandatory voting laws is very high.
Mandatory voting laws are just another sham to make people believe they have a say in politics and a convenient trick to steal their money. As an added benefit, as can be noted by North Korea’s bragging about 100% voter turnout, mandatory voting laws also provide the state with propaganda it can use to justify its legitimacy. How could one, for example, argue that Kim Jong-un isn’t a legitimate ruler when 100% of the population voted for him?