Category: News You Need to Know

The UK Prime Minster is Spouting More Malarkey

The United Kingdom (UK) government had a meeting dealing with means of quelling the recent riots and instead of coming up with viable solutions they’ve simply come up with means of further tightening their grip of citizens. Not only have them discussed means of tightening their grip over the citizenry but they’re also making empty promises:

“To the law abiding people who play by the rules, and who are the overwhelming majority in our country, I say: the fightback has begun, we will protect you, if you’ve had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side.

Emphasis mine. You guys have been doing a bang up job of protecting people so far. Why would the victims of the rioters believe their government is going to protect them now? Why didn’t the government start protecting the victims when the rioters came to loot and firebomb their homes? Give up? Because they can’t. There aren’t enough police in the entire UK to property defend the citizenry against all of the rioters. If the UK government was actually concerned with protecting the people living within their borders they would immediately life the ban on firearm ownership and allow people to have a means of self-defense.

Instead of allowing private individuals means of protection the UK government has come up with the following methods to curb the riots:

  • To look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via social media when “we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”
  • Plans to look at whether wider powers of curfew and dispersal orders were needed
  • New powers for police to order people to remove facemasks where criminality is suspected
  • Courts could be given tougher sentencing powers
  • Landlords could be given more power to evict criminals from social housing
  • Plans to extend the system of gang injunctions across the country and build on anti-gang programmes, similar to those in the US
  • He said the government would meet the cost of “legitimate” compensation claims and the time limit for applying would increase from 14 to 42 days
  • A £10m Recovery Scheme to provide additional support to councils in making areas “safe, clean and clear”
  • A new £20m high street support scheme to help affected businesses get back up and running quickly
  • Plans for the government to meet the immediate costs of emergency accommodation for families made homeless

So you’re going to try enforcing curfew (I’m sure the rioters will go home at night if you tell them it’s the law), possibly suspend free speech by closing access to social networking sites, go after anybody wearing a mask, and spend taxpayer money to compensate the victims of violence who’ve been left defenseless because of your laws? Well I guess they have this entire situation solves and everybody can return to their tea and biscuits. Mission accomplish boys!

You can see me shaking my head as I type this but I must say the entire UK government must be a bunch of fucking idiots… never mind I already knew that.

UK Government Looking at Shutting Down Social Networks

If you had an disillusion that the United Kingdom (UK) was a free country it’s time to open your eyes. The UK Prime Minister is suggesting that social networks be shutdown:

Speaking in the House of Commons, Cameron said, “Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were, organised via social media.

“Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

The article itself opens with a quip about this being suggestion being worthy of China’s communist regime and they’re correct. In my opinion even suggesting that the freedom of speech be revoked is a sign that the government has become tyrannical (the United States government included). When agents of the government are willing to blatantly state their desire to censor free speech you know that they are no longer worried about backlash from a public who would rather be free than tyrannical (then again judging by the laws in the UK their citizens haven’t wanted to be free since inception).

When Everything Goes to Hell

The situation in the United Kingdom (UK) went from bad to worse pretty quickly. After looking into the story more thoroughly I feel that I can make a more education post in relation to the riots. First we need to start with the catalyst, the shooing of Mark Duggan.

I incorrectly stated yesterday that Duggan was a demonstrator, like I said I hadn’t had time to look into the story and thus incorrect statements were likely. Mark Duggan wasn’t a demonstrator, he was a man the police were apparently trying to arrest. Early it was stated that Duggan shot at the police but recent evidence refutes such claims:

Mr Duggan, 29, whose death sparked the first riots in Tottenham, died from a single bullet wound, an inquest heard.

The police watchdog said ballistic tests showed “no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired”.

According to reports the officers that killed Duggan were part of Operation Trident. Operation Trident was established due to the fact people aren’t free to own means of self-defense in the UK. The specialty of Operation Trident is dealing with gun “crime” (quotations used because the task force deals treats ownership as a crime even though it’s not by any sane standards) in black communities. So why were the police initially attempting to arrest Duggan? Was it because he was in possession of a firearm? If so he was murdered in my opinion since ownership of an item isn’t grounds for the use of lethal force.

On the other hand if Duggan used his firearm in a threatening manner I can see why the police would consider the act one in which lethal force was an appropriate response. This scenario seems unlikely to me as the police would have mentioned it as their justification for shooting Duggan.

Either way we have a man killed by the police which lead to a demonstration and that demonstration lead to a multi-day riot in several cities in the UK. In a true statement of idiocy the people rioting over a grievance with their government have turned to destroying the private property of people who aren’t even employees of the government.

Another thing to note is the plight of the defenseless victims of the rioters. In the UK citizens have no right to self-defense and the most effective means of self-defense have been confiscated and deemed illegal. Because of this those who reside in the areas where rioting is prevalent are at the mercy of the roving mobs. Those of us living in the United States are fortunate that our government hasn’t completely stripped us of our right to keep and bear arms. When riots happen in this country the people being assault by rioters have a means of evening the odds and increasing their chances of surviving the encounter. Being the target of an angry mob is not a good situation regardless but having a firearm at least grants you the capability to defending yourself against multiple attackers.

Those living in the UK have no such ability and thus their only choices are pray that they aren’t preyed upon by the riots or become defenseless victims if they’re caught by those roaming the streets looking for violence. Hell, if the people in the UK weren’t prohibited the ownership of firearms this entire situation may not have occurred as it’s possible Duggan was being arrested merely for the possession of a gun (it’s also possible he was being arrested for something else, the police haven’t publicly released any information that I’m aware of). The last sentence is something for you anti-gunners to consider.

In the end the only thing that is certain is that things went to Hell quickly in the UK. It’s likely that we’ll never know the entirety of the story but it is likely that the UK government will use these riots as an excuse to further strip those living under it’s rule of their few remaining rights.

Oh, and those security cameras the government put up everywhere to spy on the citizenry didn’t do jack shit. I just thought I’d point that out in case anybody believed public surveillance somehow deterred crime.

Britain Implodes

I leave for one week and Britain decided it would be a bloody good time to explode into riots. I’m a bit out of the loop since I was basically on communications blackout so I haven’t had time to look into these riots much but I have found some of the usual. From what I’ve gathered these riots started when a British police officer shot a demonstrator. It’s refreshing to see a population outraged at government abuse but when you start smashing windows of store owners who have absolutely nothing to do with the actions of government you lose all legitimacy immediately.

Needless to say this looks like a giant cluster fuck and will likely end in the British government passing a whole slew of new laws further restricting the freedom of people living in that country. I’m also sure that the rioters will be labeled as terrorists and a bunch of rhetoric will be spewed by the government in an attempt to strike fear into the hearts of British subjects.

Defcon Attendees Set Record for Most Naked Body Scanner Opt-Outs in Las Vegas

I’ve been told some good news in regards to Defcon. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced that the record for naked body scanner opt-outs at the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport was set yesterday before noon. This record was shattered because yesterday was the last day of Defcon and a large chunk of the attendees were flying home.

Congratulations is in order for those who refused to submit to the TSA’s cancer machines.

Saving Animals Made Illegal By Government’s Attempt to Save Animals

The government loves to arbitrarily declare certain spices of animals as protected. What does the government mean by protected? It means if you try to help one of these “protected” animals you’ll face fines and possible jail time just like this mother:

Eleven-year-old aspiring veterinarian, Skylar Capo, sprang into action the second she learned that a baby woodpecker in her Dad’s backyard was about to be eaten by the family cat.

“I’ve just always loved animals,” said Skylar Capo. “I couldn’t stand to watch it be eaten.”

Skylar couldn’t find the woodpecker’s mother, so she brought it to her own mother, Alison Capo, who agreed to take it home.

[…]

But roughly two weeks later, that same woman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed up at Capo’s front door. This time, Capo says the woman was accompanied by a state trooper. Capo refused to accept a citation, but was later mailed a notice to appear in U.S. District Court for unlawfully taking a migratory bird. She’s also been slapped with a $535 fine.

This should serve as a good lesson to that criminal 11 year-old kid, don’t try to help anybody or anything because if you do the state will initiate violence against your person (or in this case your mom because you’re not yet old enough to be held legally responsible). If you see an animal in need of assistance let it die because if you help it you’re going to be punished for your good deed.

Remember it’s the government’s job to protect those animals and when the government claims a job they ensure they have a legal monopoly. Any competition will be smashed until the heel of legislation.

Every Money Making Idea Carries Its Share of Risks

Entrepreneurship is a great thing and everybody should be looking for ways to make money off of what they already have available to them. Saying that it’s also important to know the risks of any money making strategy you come up with because sometimes the risks are much higher than the potential money to be made off of the venture. There is a new site that I’ve not heard of before called Airbnb that allow you to post up your place of residence and rent it to those who’ll be in the area for a short while (I think it’s aimed at people on vacation). It seems like an easy way to make money but anybody with two brain cells to rub together could figure out one giant risk involved, you’ll let people into your home which can have some major consequences as one person found out:

The facts: Last month “EJ” wrote a long blog post about how a renter spent an entire week carefully robbing and trashing her home. Walls were cut through to get to locked valuables, including her grandmother’s jewelry.

If somebody is going to be in your place when you’re not there there’s always a risk of your place ending up trashed, robbed, or both. This is a risk landlord, hotels, and motel owners have to deal with constantly. Many people lack any respect for the property of others and are more than happy to destroy or outright take it (for example, it’s the statist standard operating procedure).

Landlords, hotels, and motels attempt to alleviate this problem through insurance, verifying the identities of clients, and through a means of obtaining payment to cover damaged before they happen. In the case of landlords they usually required a security deposit which is returned to the client when they leave so long as nothing has been damaged. In the case of hotels and motels they usually require a credit card on file which they will charge any room damage or theft to.

Airbnb is a slightly different beast as they keep both parties in the deal anonymous until money has traded hands. This means until a client has actually paid for the use of the property the property owner is unable to perform actions like background checks or identify verification. This also generates a risk for the client as they may arrive only to discover the property isn’t there, the property that is there doesn’t belong to the owner, or that the place isn’t as advertised. Airbnb’s plan to alleviate these potential problems lies in their user ratings, but as the service is new there are few user ratings to go off of leading those interested in the service running blind.

Personally I find the prospect of renting my dwelling to another to carry a higher risk than the reward would be worth (especially since I’m renting and thus would be subleasing which in turn would be a violation of my lease). Others obviously think differently otherwise Airbnb wouldn’t be around at the moment. But the thing to note here is that there is no such thing as risk-free money (unless you’re the government, stealing from people is pretty risk free when you have a monopoly on the use of force). If you figure out a plan to make money make sure you understand the potential cost of the involved risks. Losing $100.00 because you loaned somebody money and they never repaid you isn’t life or death for many people but many will be unable to recover from the loss involved in having their entire home destroyed and much of their property stolen.

You Reap What You Sow

I’m not against the concept of unions as I believe anybody who wants to voluntarily join together with others is a right. What I am against though is when unions use the government’s monopoly on force to make companies comply with the demands of unions. Here’s how I see it, you’re more than welcome to start a union to fight for increased pay, benefits, and conditions just as the company is more than welcome to fire all of your asses if your demands are too high or you’re not willing to negotiate. The concept is called free association, I can choose to associate with you and you can choose to associate with me but neither of us are required to associate with one another.

There are union protests going on at several American Crystal Sugar because the company finally got fed up with the union’s demands and dumped them for non-union employees:

The union representing sugar beet processors says more than 1,200 employees were turned away from entering seven American Crystal Sugar plants in Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa Monday morning.

The current labor contract expired at midnight Sunday after production workers overwhelmingly rejected the company’s final offer Saturday.

Replacement workers arrived in vans before dawn. In East Grand Forks, security guards were posted at the plant entrances and a line was spray painted outside the doors — a line union employees were told not to cross. WDAZ-TV reports about 120 union workers showed up about 6:15 a.m., but were turned away. Some stayed to picket the plant.

[…]

After the union rejected the company’s offer Saturday, American Crystal Sugar Vice President Brian Ingulsrud said the union rejected a 13 percent pay increase over a five-year contract plus a $2,000 signing bonus.

Negotiations require both sides to give to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Although American Crystal Sugar man an offer to increase the wages of union workers by 13% in a time of economic hardship (plus a $2,000 signing bonus) the union decided that wasn’t enough and refused to accept the offer. Here’s the other thing about negotiations, your side has far less power if is willing to walk away and they will walk away if they find you’re demands are too high. American Crystal Sugar found the union’s demands to be unreasonable and thus game them the finger and hired new employees who are likely to cause fewer headaches.

Of course the union claimed that the negotiations are not about pay but on granting the union a monopoly on labor:

“These negotiations are not and never have been about pay,” Riskey added on Saturday. “The company’s offer still has major loopholes allowing non-union contractors to replace union workers and makes health insurance unaffordable. Any raise is meaningless if our health care costs increase even more or if management can eliminate our jobs and replace us at will.”

What company is going to accept terms where they’re unable to hire non-union employees? That’s basically asking the company to tie their hands behind their back during future negotiations. If I owned a company I would never agree to terms that prevent me, the owner, from running things as I damn well pleased. In exchange for not having to deal with such nonsense I’d ensure I paid my employees well so I wouldn’t have to go through the hardship of hiring and retraining new people constantly.

The union is literally saying that they want a monopoly on hiring employees for American Crystal Sugar. I understand why the whole lot of them were replaced although I’m sure if union employees were willing to leave the union and return to work American Crystal Sugar would have no issue rehiring them (although the union might break that employee’s kneecaps). I also love the final part:

Health costs would go up an average of about $1,000 per employee, which is significantly less than their pay increase, the company said. The union says their out-of-pocket health care costs, on average, would more than double.

You wanted your “free” government provide healthcare and now you got it, and you’re going to have to pay dearly for it. Welcome to government interference in the market, the more power you give the government the higher the cost of providing goods and services in that market. The national unions strongly supported the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act and are now reaping what they sowed. Sadly they made sure all of us got fucked along with them.

Thank You Captain Obvious

Today Captain Obvious found fit to inform us of the bloody obvious with the following headline:

Norway killer insane, says lawyer

Yeah, no shit. But I would argue that his type of insanity doesn’t qualify for a defense against the murder or 76 (new number listed on the story) people. If you read (or even skim) his manifesto it’s obvious that he has enough cognitive capabilities to understand the difference between right and wrong (his belief of what is right or wrong is scary though). Just because he managed to justify his desire to kill to himself doesn’t mean he was unable to understand what he was doing was not only wrong but, at the very least, illegal.

I believe he was fully aware of his actions and thus the insanity defense isn’t something I’m buying into.

Norway’s Maximum Prison Sentence Isn’t Exactly a Maximum

Some of the buzz surrounding the recent tragedy in Norway is dealing with the fact that the maximum prison sentence you can serve in that country is 21 years. A lot of people are rather upset that the man who has admitted to the attacks which killed 93 people may spent a paltry 21 years in prison. Oh ye of little faith. The state always makes exceptions in their rules that allow them to punish somebody more severely than generally believed. Norway does have an exception to their maximum 21 year prison sentence rule:

Norway’s mass killer faces a maximum jail term of just 21 years. Astonishingly, that is the longest sentence available to judges in Norway’s benevolent justice system.

[…]

Only in exceptional cases, if officials consider a prisoner is still highly dangerous, will sentences be extended for additional five-year blocks.

Judging by the man’s actions and material he’s produced I’d say justification for him being a continued danger to society wouldn’t be hard to come by. The man who claimed responsibility in this case very well could spend the rest of his life in prison so long as he’s judged a continued threat to society every five years.

Never believe stories that claim a state has established limitations on the amount of punishment they can dole out. In this case I believe the attacker deserves far more than a mere 21 years in prison and I’m betting he’ll get far more.