Are you looking for some German power metal? You are? Then I have exactly what you’re looking for — Blind Guardian:
Month: March 2015
Your Survival Tip of the Day
This is a survival tip for all of my brothers and sisters who choose to carry a firearm openly. If you want to openly carry a firearm it’s probably not a good idea to antagonize people with a history of violence and a shield against accountability:
Police did not identify the man, who was not arrested, charged, or injured in the encounter – which he recorded on video and posted online.
“While out on an open carry walk, I was followed by the Madison Heights police department,” said the man, who calls himself Nunya Beeswax online. “They followed me from a distance, which was troubling, because they could clearly see that no laws were being broken. After initially declining to speak with the police, I decided to approach them and ask why they were essentially stalking a law abiding citizen. I did not appreciate the fact that one of these trigger happy morons placed his hand on his pistol when he approached me.”
The man approaches officers and asks why they’re following him, and he tells police he won’t answer any of their questions.
He asks one of the officers to remove his hand from his holstered weapon and demands to know whether the officer will shoot him.
“I’m talking now,” the man says, interrupting one of the officers. “That shiny little badge he has on his chest doesn’t give him any more rights than I have. Actually, you all work for me and the taxpayers, right?”
“You come over here with your hand on your gun, that’s reason for me to think that you feel ill will towards me,” the man continues. “If I were to do the same thing, you’d probably pull your gun out and point it at me, am I right? I’m talking to you, tough guy.”
There’s nothing wrong with open carry but being an antagonistic asshole isn’t a good way to make friends and can be dangerous if the people you are antagonizing are members of the largest, move violent gang in the country. In this case the person open carrying admitted that he initiated conversation with the police, which breaks the cardinal rule of never talking to the police.
Not only is being an antagonistic asshole a poor survival tactic but it can also become a legal nightmare down the road. The idiot antagonist filmed his antics and posted them online so that it can never be erased. Should he ever be involved in a self-defense situation this video could be used for a nasty bit of character assassination. If avoiding conflict isn’t reason enough for you to not be an asshat then possible court case is another reason you should consider.
Or you could just choose to not be a dick because being a dick seldom leads to anything positive.
Story of the Week
The ultimate story of statism run amok occurred in China this week when the country’s government decided that the Dalai Lama can’t choose to not reincarnate without government approval:
Party functionaries were incensed by the exiled Dalai Lama’s recent speculation that he might end his spiritual lineage and not reincarnate. That would confound the Chinese government’s plans to engineer a succession that would produce a putative 15th Dalai Lama who accepts China’s presence and policies in Tibet. Their anger welled up on Wednesday, as it had a day earlier.
Zhu Weiqun, a Communist Party official who has long dealt with Tibetan issues, told reporters in Beijing on Wednesday that the Dalai Lama had, essentially, no say over whether he was reincarnated. That was ultimately for the Chinese government to decide, he said, according to a transcript of his comments on the website of People’s Daily, the party’s main newspaper.
“Decision-making power over the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, and over the end or survival of this lineage, resides in the central government of China,” said Mr. Zhu, formerly a deputy head of the United Front Department of the Communist Party, which oversees dealings with religious and other nonparty groups. He now leads the ethnic and religious affairs committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body that meets at the same time as the Legislature, or National People’s Congress.
There’s nothing I can add to this story. It’s so ridiculous it stands entirely on it own.
Obey or Die
Franklin Graham, the son of Bill Graham (who made a hilarious guest appearance in The Illuminatus! Trilogy), is your typical religious zealot. He espouses a belief in god, hates everybody who isn’t a cisgender heterosexual, and becomes sexually aroused when in the presence of authority. That last part really confuses me though. As a Christian I would think he would find it sinful to worship the false idol of the state. After all, Jesus was about as anti-state as one could get and ended up being killed by the Roman state because of it. But Graham loves the state so much that he took time out of his busy day of judging everybody (which is also something I thought Christians were supposed to refrain) to write a very important message on his Facebook wall:
In other words as long as you’re an obedient little slave you (probably) won’t get hurt! This is one of the sickest messages imaginable. He just justified any police action taken if somebody refuses to get down on their knees and kiss an officer’s boot. I though this was supposed to be the freest goddamn country on Earth and a nation of laws. In a free state (I know that’s an oxymoron) one would be free to disobey unlawful orders regardless of who barked them. And a nation of laws would hold everybody to the same standard regardless if they wear a shiny badge and a silly looking costume or not.
This is an attitude shared by most of the touch on crime fuckwits. Not only is it an endorsement of fascism but it’s also blatant victim blaming. Blaming somebody who was shot dead by a cop for refusing to obey an unlawful order is right up there with blaming a woman who was raped for wearing too short of a skirt. If a cop acts unlawfully they are the wrongdoer. Period. There is no situation where a cop shooting somebody that doesn’t comply with an unlawful order is OK.
Franklin Graham is one of those people on my very long list of psychopaths who should be shipped to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to isolate their wickedness from civilized society.
As an aside, I wonder how Graham copes with his belief that homosexuality is a sin and getting a raging erection every time he’s in the presence of a male police officer.
Pro-Life Politicians Makes Best Argument Favoring Abortions
I don’t wade into the abortion debate pool very often. Part of the reason is that I cannot become pregnant so I don’t feel as though the qualifications necessary for this debate. The other reason I avoid it is because it gets very heated very quickly. But there are times when one side makes such a good argument that I feel it is my moral duty to share it. Jonathan Stickland, a member of the Texas House of Representatives and a pro-life advocate, ironically made one of the best argument in favor of abortion:
One of the signs appeared Wednesday morning on the wall outside Rep. Jonathan Stickland’s office. It identifies the Bedford Republican as a “FORMER FETUS,” using a format similar to the plaques near most members’ doors.
Imagine if every politicians’ mother chose to get an abortion. The world would be a far better place!
This is What Happens When Officers Can Turn Off Body Cameras
Advocates of police accountability have been arguing that police officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. Although there was some resistance to this idea from police apologists that has mostly faded. Many of them are now on board with the idea because they understand that body cameras can collect evidence to prosecute more people and that officers and disable the cameras when they’re about to beat somebody down. That second part is important because it will render any of the benefits of body cameras useless. What we can expect in the future is what Denver is experiencing now:
As the nation’s policing agents scramble to provide street officers with body cameras, a new study released Wednesday shows that a majority of use-of-force incidents weren’t captured by Denver police officers who are piloting use of the technology.
There were a host of reasons for officers failing to turn on the body worn cameras (BWCs) in violation of Denver Police Department policy. According to an independent police monitor’s report, which surveyed the six months ending in December, only 26 percent of the use-of-force incidents in the studied policing district were captured on video.
If officers can disable their body cameras without consequence then any benefits of mandating body cameras, at least as far as the people are concerned, go out the window. Unless officers are punished, and by that I mean charged with a crime, for disabling their body cameras while on duty the only purpose those fancy devices will serve is to collect evidence to prosecute people.
Body cameras along won’t hold officers accountable. There also needs to be policies that will result in officer being fired, fined, and opened up to lawsuits if they disabled their cameras. I believe arguments could even be made for jailing an officer who disables his body camera during a use of force incident (in which case I would argue that doing so would effectively be an admittance of guilt in a court hearing unless evidence of non-officer related failure could be shown).
Tom Cotton Hates Due Process
Is the Republican Party holding some kind of contest to see who can make the biggest public display of asshattery? If it is it seems like Tom Cotton isn’t holding back. While his supporters have been busy touting him as a hero and fighter for liberty due to his military service as it turns out he isn’t a fan of liberty. In fact Cotton appears to be a rather big fan of torture without so much as a trail:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Monday said the U.S. should be “proud” of how it treats the “savages” it detains at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
“Terrorists need no excuse to attack us here. They’ve shown that for decades and decades,” Cotton said on Fox News’ “The Kelly File.” “We should be proud for the way we treated these savages at Guantanamo Bay and the way our soldiers conduct themselves all around the world to include the people doing the very hard work at Guantanamo Bay.”
Let me translate what he said into layman’s terms:
Individuals who have been suspected of terrorism, sometimes on as little evidence as owning a specific wristwatch, need no due process. We should be proud of the way we’ve tortured these human beings at Guantanamo Bay without so much as a trail to establish their guilt. Our pride for our soldiers’ conduct around the world should be unconditional. Just because a soldier has been complicit in war crimes doesn’t mean we can’t take pride in their actions!
That’s what Cotton said and it’s a terrible statement that could make him a shoo-in for any contest of asshattery. Needless to say anybody who supports this fuckwit from here on out cannot be taken seriously if they claim to be a supporter of liberty. Due process is necessary for liberty to exist. Without establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt there is no way to justify, at least in a free society, the imposition of punishment.
The United States Can’t Do Anything Cool
I don’t want to beat this dead horse much longer but I believe it’s necessary for me to point out how lame American politics is. People are upset about the 47 senators who wrote a vague threat to the Iranian government.
What we have here are 47 government officials writing a stinkin’ letter to prove how pissed off at Iran they are. This just goes to show that the United States can’t do anything cool. The last time 47 government officials in Japan were pissed off shit went down.
In Libertopia Valid Contracts Require Exit Clauses
Yesterday I stumbled across this lovely story of a landlord putting a clause into their lease agreement that would punish renters that wrote bad reviews with a $10,000 fine. As if that wasn’t enough the lease agreement also gives the landlord the copyright to anything a renter creates involving the property (including photographs of the property and written reviews of the property):
The Social Media Addendum, published here, is a triple-whammy. First, it explicitly bans all “negative commentary and reviews on Yelp! [sic], Apartment Ratings, Facebook, or any other website or Internet-based publication or blog.” It also says any “breach” of the Social Media Addendum will result in a $10,000 fine, to be paid within ten business days. Finally, it goes ahead and assigns the renters’ copyrights to the owner—not just the copyright on the negative review, but “any and all written or photographic works regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property, or the apartments.” Snap a few shots of friends who come over for a dinner party? They’re owned by your landlord.
The article notes that the agreement would be shredded by any judge. But the more interesting part about this story was the conversation I got into with one of my libertarian friends. When I posted this story on Facebook I noted that I wouldn’t abide by an agreement such as this one. My friend stated that I shouldn’t sign it then because I was planning to violate the voluntary agreement and therefore would be committing fraud.
This brought up an interesting debate over what constitutes a voluntary agreement. Some libertarians believe any contract signed in the absence of coercion is voluntary. I don’t subscribe to that belief. Based on my view of libertarianism I believe any voluntary agreement must include an exit clause for any party that signs it. If an exit clause does not exist for all parties then the agreement ceases to be voluntary as soon as one party changes their mind. One of the reasons I don’t consider the United States military to be a voluntary organization is because people who enlist have little recourse if they later decide they want out. Without an exit clause a supposedly voluntary agreement becomes a form of, abeit limited in most cases, indentured servitude.
I say all of this with the understanding that exit clauses can have stipulations. Entering a business agreement with other parties is difficult if one of them backing out could leave you on the hook for their financial responsibilities. For example, it would certainly be valid to require a party exiting from a business agreement to pay their portion of any debt incurred. Libertarians can debate this objection of mine but my other objection, I believe, is harder to argue against from a libertarian standpoint.
As longtime readers know I don’t believe intellectual property is anything more than state created fiction. However even if we accept intellectual property is a thing copyright in this country is defined arbitrarily by uninvolved parties. Right now the length of a copyright in the United States is the life of an author plus 70 years. Work for hire copyrights are valid for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation if it’s unpublished. But these durations are created entirely by politicians in Washington DC and can therefore be redefined without any input from creators or copyright holders. In other words the copyright claimed by the landlord, over your creation, could become indefinite with the stroke of a pen. How can one be expected to abide by an agreement that could change at anytime without their input?
It’s also worth considering if signing a knowingly invalid agreement with the express purpose of violating it is fraud. To this I would ask if you can fraud a fraudster? Clarifying further I would ask if you stole stolen property to return it to the original owner would you be a thief? In both cases I would answer in the negative. Taking stolen property with the purpose of returning it to its original owner is a method of righting a wrong. Likewise calling somebody out on their bullshit is also a method righting a wrong. If somebody is including an unenforceable clause in a contract then they should be called out. One way of calling them out is to sign the agreement, violate the clause, and demonstrate that it’s unenforceable. As an upside, since it would force the including of the clause to expend resources, this method of calling out their bullshit would raise the stakes of including invalid clauses as opposed to just telling them the clause is invalid.
In summary I would argue that the linked agreement would not only be invalid under current laws but would remain invalid under stateless Libertopia. Just because two parties signed a contract doesn’t mean it’s a valid agreement even under libertarianism.
Target, Hire Me as Your Next CEO
In 2011 Target decided to make a concerted effort to push into Canada. This experiment ended with the company pulling out of our neighbor to the north with a loss of $5.4 billion. The loss caused the termination of 1,700 employees and a decision not to fill 1,400 open positions. To add a bit of insult to injury the CEO overseeing this failure was Gregg Steinhafel and he received a $61 million severance package.
I really think Target should consider hiring me to replace their current CEO. You’re probably wondering what my qualifications are. Well they’re pretty damn good. If I were the CEO of Target I could raze that company to the ground harder than a Mongol horde in Baghdad. And I would be willing to do it for much less than $61 million! I’d be willing to do the same thing for only a couple million dollars. But my magic touch isn’t available exclusively to Target. Any company that wants to give a massive severance package to a CEO in exchange for them destroying it can hire me!
My e-mail address is conveniently located in the navigation bar to the right. Feel free to get in contact with me if you’re interested in my services.