Month: March 2015

The President’s Negotiations with Iran

The big controversy this week, besides Hillary Clinton running her own e-mail server, is the president’s negotiations with Iran. That’s right, the president is negotiating with terrorists!

Not only did Reagan deal with terrorists as president, as revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the preponderance of evidence now supports the charge that his campaign negotiated with Iranian hostage-takers while he was running for president in 1980, to delay the release of hostages before the election, which could have helped Carter win reelection — what was known as “The October Surprise.” Given that Reagan wasn’t president then, but was negotiating to thwart a president’s attempt to get hostages released, this is not simply questionable behavior, it is arguably an act of treason. Democrats’ reluctance to vigorously investigate Reagan’s misdeeds — the exact opposite of GOP attitudes toward Clinton and Obama — has left much of the true story still shrouded in mystery, but what we do know is damning enough in itself, and still cries out for a truly thorough investigation.

Oops. Wrong decade and wrong party. My bad. As I said yesterday, this entire debate has nothing to do with ideology or stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Republicans are butthurt over the possibility of President Obama successfully negotiating an anti-nuclear deal with Iran because it would be a feather in the Democratic Party’s hat. Historically the Republican’s darling child, Ronald Reagan (queue a chorus of angels singing as that seems to happen whenever a Republican mentions Reagan’s name), negotiated not only with Iran but with Iranian hostage-takers. In the end he also armed them as part of the Contra deal. So you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t find the Republican’s sudden outrage at Obama’s negotiations convincing. The only thing they’re upset about is that one of their guys isn’t negotiating the deal (which is probably good since the last time one of their guys negotiated with Iran it ended in the United States supply weapons to the country).

Bloomington City Attorney Wanted to Prosecute Mall of American Employees Who Supported December’s Protesters

There was a major protest inside the Mall of America in December. Since then the authorities have been working hard to find ways to punish the protesters and that has resulted in some ridiculous charges. But it seems that the Bloomington City Attorney wasn’t satisfied with only charging a handful of protesters. She wanted to punish the employees at the Mall of America who showed support for the protesters:

Bloomington City Attorney Sandra Johnson said the emails “appear to be valid” after they were posted on Facebook Monday by Black Lives Matter Minneapolis. The group said it obtained the emails through a public records request.

The December emails show the city attorney and Mall of America Corporate Counsel Kathleen Allen weighing trespassing orders and civil charges to deter further unsanctioned demonstrations. In one, Allen says the mall’s owners did not want trespassing orders against Lush employees who showed support for the protest, citing “the potential for further press.”

Johnson argued for a six-month ban from the mall for employees (with an exception allowing access to work at the store) in order to “send a good message to all persons employed at MOA. … Future demonstrations cannot be tolerated.”

This shows that these charges have nothing to do with the law. Under the law the protesters, at most, may have been guilty of trespassing (depending on whether or not you believe a mall that receives massive amounts of tax payer subsidies qualifies as private property). Any working employee wasn’t trespassing since it was their job to be there. If their employer felt those employees had violated any policies it could fire them but there was absolutely no reason for the Bloomington City Attorney to even suggest going after them.

What these charges amount to is petty vengeance. The Bloomington City Attorney is pissed that people decided to ignore her employer’s authority and protest in the Mall of America after being told not to. In the e-mail she said she wanted to “send a good message to all persons employed at MOA.” that future protests will not be tolerated in any way. Putting that statement into plain English she wanted to send a message to all of the serfs at the Mall of America that any disobedience against their lords will be punished swiftly.

She should be fired immediately.

American Politics is Nothing More Than Disagreeing With the Other Party

People often ask me why I don’t participate in politics even in a very limited level. Even when I point out that I don’t believe any meaningful chance can come from politics they always claim that it doesn’t take much time to at least try. But American politics have devolved to the point where the only ideology that exists is one of “I’m for whatever they’re against.” Nowhere is this more evident that the supposed threat of a nuclear Iran.

Israel’s prime minster was invited by Republicans to give a speech in front of Congress without seeking approval from the president. The only apparent reason the Republicans invited him was because the president didn’t. Benjamin Netanyahu gave a fear filled speech as part of his reelection campaign and it created the desired effect of getting Americans to talk about a nuclear Iran again. Obama has been in talks with Iran for a while now so the Republican Party, which claims it also wants to stop a nuclear Iran, is obviously glad to see progress being made, right? Wrong. The Republican Party just sent a letter to Iran basically threatening the country if the American presidency switches over to their party:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) – Republican senators warned Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

The letter, signed by 47 U.S. senators, says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017, while many in Congress will remain in Washington long after that.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” the letter read.

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of an agreement at any time,” it read.

Herein lies the problem. Obama has been heading discussions with Iran. His status as a Democrat means that anything he does is automatically opposed by the Republicans (and vice versa). So they’re knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s discussions is to make vague threats at Iran instead of involving themselves in the process.

This is the biggest problem in American politics today. In this case Obama and the Republican Party want the same thing, an Iran without nuclear weapons. Considering this you would think the two parties would publicly work together even if they were stabbing each other in the back behind the scenes. But even the illusion of civility and logic is gone. The only thing that matters is being against anything the other party does. Watching American politics is like watching two religious zealous trying to prove who is more zealous than the other while also insinuating their opponent is Satan and can therefore only express ideas that are evil.

The American empire was an interesting experiment in genocidal “liberty” but it’s over now. Any fantasies of logic, decency, and good governance is entirely dead. All that remains are a bunch of pathetic politicians trying to steal whatever they can before the empire burns to the ground entirely.

Got $17,000 Burning a Hole In Your Pocket? Apple Can Help!

Yesterday Apple unveiled a new MacBook and released more details about the Apple Watch. The new MacBook certainly qualifies as a fantastic feat of personal electronics manufacturing. However having only a single port on the entire device makes it useless to me. One USB Type-C port that also doubles as the charging port means attaching accessories to the laptop will be impossible. I think Apple really missed the mark by not having the power adapter integrate a USB Type-C hub. None of this matters though since I’m not the intended audience for the laptop.

The Apple Watch appeared to be the star of the show even though I found it underwhelming when compared to the new MacBook. Apple announced that its watch would have a paltry 18 hour battery life based on estimations of average usage (but we have no idea what it estimates to be average usage so the measure is meaningless). However pricing was announced and if you have $17,000 burning a hole in your pocket Apple is here to help.

People have been comparing the luxury Watch Edition of the Apple Watch to high end watch manufacturers such as Rolex, Jaeger-Le Coultre, and Patek Phillipe. I feel that there’s a major difference that people making the comparison are leaving out. When you drop ten grand or more on, say, a Rolex you have a timepiece for life. Hell, you have a timepiece for the life of your children and their children. There is also resale value. Dropping ten grand or more on the Apple Watch will net you an electronic device that will be outdated next year and that will pretty much eliminate its resale value. I also have my doubts that the Apple Watch will be as serviceable as watches from well known watchmakers (there are skilled watchmakers that still service decades old Submariners, for example). Even if you do pass down an Apple Watch it’s unlikely getting a replacement battery in 30 years will be feasible. So I don’t think comparing the Apple Watch to established watchmakers is a terribly good idea.

In the end I don’t see the Apple Watch selling terribly well but few people have made money betting against Apple since Steve Jobs took the reigns back. That new MacBook will probably sell like hotcakes though. People want thin laptops and the new MacBook is certainly thin.

Hillary Clinton Shows the Value of Hosting Your Own E-Mail

Republicans and statist libertarians have been losing their shit over the news that Hillary Clinton continued using her private e-mail address while acting as Secretary of State and hosted that e-mail address on a server in her home:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

[…]

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.

I highly doubt Hillary personally administered the server (although I would be impressed if she did). A person as influential and wealthy as her can afford a dedicated system administrator. However that isn’t relevant to this story. What is relevant is the reason her political opponents are losing their shit. It was a brilliant move that protected her privacy:

WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.

But it turns out that that was not everything.

The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

Everybody bitching about this needs to take a step back and understand the important lesson here. Hosting your e-mail on a server you personally control, one that is under your physical supervision, is a smart fucking move. By doing so she was able to avoid providing personal information to the State Department when it was investigating the Benghazi attack. If she could shield her personal information from a government investigation then you can as well!

The nice thing about hosting your own e-mail server is that you have complete control over it. You can delete all e-mails that are over six months old and verify that those deleted e-mails have been purged from all backups. Investigators can’t get what doesn’t exist no matter how many warrants and subpoena are issued. If your e-mail is on a third-party host you cannot verify that data has been removed from both your system and the hosting provider’s backups. Another benefit is that it’s impossible for the state to use a National Security Letter (NSL) to secretly obtain a copy of your e-mails. The only way the state can get copies of your e-mails from a self-hosted server is to either break in and copy them or order you to provide the data. Either way you stand a very good chance of knowing when the state has copied your data.

So ignore the partisan politics because they’re meaningless. If if those e-mails were obtained by investigators Hillary would have been found innocent of all wrongdoing. That’s a privilege of being a member of the oligarchy. What is meaningful is that she did something very intelligent and there’s no reason you can’t do the same (even if you don’t have the knowledge necessary to host an e-mail server you can learn).

Modern Medical Technology Amazes Me

Prosthetics have only recently become more than crude mechanical devices capable of only being able to simulate very basic human movements, if they could even simulate that. But that introduction of computer technology has allow prosthetics to improve dramatically in a very short period of time. One of my friends posted this video of a woman who has a prosthetic hand that moves very much like a natural hand.

The prosthetic is made by Bebionic, which makes prosthetics that use motors and microprocessors to better mimic human movements. All I can say is that’s incredibly cool.

It’s Because He’s in the Big Club

David Petraeus received a slap on the wrist because he leaked classified documents to his mistress. His punishment has raised a very important question:

Surely a person’s punishment for leaking classified material should not be greater when they act for selfless reasons (however misguided) rather than personal gain. So, why do Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden get the book thrown at them and General David Petraeus is let off with a fine and a promise not to do it again?

That is a very good question and I know the answer. The reason Petraeus received a slap on the wrist whlie Manning is rotting in a cage and Snowden is in exile is because those two aren’t in the big club.

Petraeus was a high ranking member within the state and with rank comes privileges. Meanwhile Manning and Snowden were both low ranking grunts. Another difference is that Petraeus caused little damage to the state. His leaks were far more controlled and didn’t give the state as many black eyes. Manning’s leaks gave the state one hell of a black eye by exposing actual war crimes it had committed. Snowden leaked a lot of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dirty little secrets that it relied on to spy on people and allowed the people it was spying on (you and I) to adopt better tools to help protect against it.

In this world whether you’re punished severely or not often depends on where you rank. Remember the state has a monopoly on “justice” and tends to treat its own far better than it treats us lowly proles.

Starving the Beast

There’s a lot of hoopla about large companies storing their cash outside of the United States. According to Bloomberg New a handful of large technology companies currently have $2.1 trillion sitting in offshore banks:

Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home.

Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles.

Ironically it’s the progressives that are making the biggest stink about this. They are bitching that the tech companies are being irresponsible by not bringing the money back into the country where it can be taxed. I say this is ironic because progressives like to claim they oppose war, militarized police, and violations of human rights. All of those things are made possible because of tax dollars.

By keeping that money outside of the United States these tech companies are preventing the state from extract tax revenue. That means it has fewer resources to build bombs; outfit local police departments with armored personnel carriers and cell phone interceptors; and hire more law enforcers to harass minorities, the homeless, and other people powerless to defend themselves.

Every company should strive to keep as much money as it can outside of the United States. Only by depriving the state of resources can we force it to either collapse or cancel rights violating programs that it can no longer afford to fund. I would even go so far as to say this practice furthers agorist goals even if it isn’t necessarily anti-state in its entirety (since other states are usually collecting some kind of tax revenue).

Instead of condemning these companies for keeping their cash overseas we should be cheering them on. We’re not going to vote our way out of this imperialistic police state but we may be able to force our oppressors’ hand into pulling back many of its more egregious practices.

Social Conservative Argues Why Social Conservatives Should Support Prison Abolition

Within social conservative circles there is a man championed as a hero of the movement. That man is Dr. Ben Carson. While Caron’s credentials as a medical professional are impressive his politics aren’t. However he did, albeit unintentional, make an argument for why social conservatives should climb down from their tough on crime pedestal and join us[*] proles in the prison abolition movement:

Dr. Ben Carson, the conservative activist who is considering a run for president in 2016, said Wednesday that he could prove that being gay is a choice since people “go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay.”

Appearing on CNN’s “New Day,” he said that people “absolutely” had a choice over their sexuality. Anchor Chris Cuomo then asked him why he thought that.

“Because a lot of people go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay,” Carson said. “So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

If there’s one thing social conservatives hate more than people who violate the arbitrary decrees issued by the state it’s homosexuals. Therefore, if as Carson claims, homosexuality is a choice and prisons create homosexuals then, to remain ideologically consistent, social conservatives should support prison abolition as a means of fighting homosexuality.

This does put social conservatives in a tough spot. Either they must admit their tough on crime attitude is breeding homosexuals or they must admit that Carson isn’t the ideological intellectual they hold him up to be. Whichever path they choose to follow I will certainly derive a great deal of amusement from it.

* Just kidding, guys. We don’t want you.

My Nomination for the New Face of the $20 Bill

Since 1928 Andrew Jackson’s face has adorned the $20 bill. A group of individuals believes it’s time for a change up and they want to see a woman’s face replace Jackson’s. I’m all for this. There’s a good reason people were lining up to kill Jackson and those reasons really should have disqualified him from appearing on our money. But the people behind this movement, sadly, have created a list of approved women. Approved lists don’t sit well with me but of the women listed I would say Harriet Tubman deserves the honor. She holds a special place in my heart for breaking the law by helping runaway slaves get to the safety of the North.

With that said, I’d like to present another nomination: Anne Bonny. The reason I want to nominate her is because she embodies the American dream. Like so many her family fled their home country of Ireland in the hopes of finding a better life in the new world. She suffered setbacks before her father made it big but was then later disowned by him. Not one to let the dream of success fall to the wayside she and her husband pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and set course for Nassau. For those of you familiar with Nassau during the 1700s it had another name: the Pirates Republic. Anne made a life for herself by joining the elite ranks of pirates. In so doing she declared herself outside the rule of the state and took up a far more honorable source of work than any politician.

For far too long our money has immortalized despots and tyrants. I think it’s we adorn our money with more respectable faces.