Tag: Politics

My View of The FCC National Broadband Plan

There has been a lot of talk in the tech community as of late about the FCC’s recent National Broadband Plan. People who don’t understand how government and taxes work are proclaiming this as a great idea since it means FREE INTERNETZ!!!!!!!!!111oneonetwo OMG!!. That’s now how things work. In fact the FCC’s plan also includes a plan for an additional tax.

No thanks. I’m more than happy to give the money that would go to paying even more taxes to a private entity who has a reason for keeping me happy (That being my money.). Economics 101 states you can’t get something for nothing (Unless you are challenge at math and actually believe in Keynesian economics.). When the government provides a service they pay for it with your tax money. Look at the breakdown of your pay check next time. Notice your gross pay is MUCH higher than your actual take home pay? Yeah that’s all tax money taken by your federal and state government to pay for fuck ups services like social security and medicare.

This situation is far more dangerous when it involves free and open communications that the Internet provides. Government is not benevolent, it does not have your best interests in mind. Government is made up by people with power and power corrupts. A private company can not compete with government programs because unlike a company a government doesn’t have to actually make money to continue existing (Look at our deficit.). The scary thing with government provided broadband (Which this National Broadband Plan would eventually turn into.) is it would most likely shut down broadband provided by private industry. At that point our Internet access, like China’s, becomes the whim of our government. This is where censorship and filtering start coming into play ladies and gentlemen.

People shouldn’t be clamoring for free* government provided Internet. Government can’t manage money. Show me a single government program that has succeeded monetarily. Instead people should be demanding the government stay as far away from Internet access as possible. We don’t need to deal with what China has and Australia is getting.

A private company has a reason to ensure its customers are happy, money. You can simply refuse to pay a company money if you don’t like their service. On the other hand you can not simply refuse to pay taxes if you don’t like the government’s service. I wish people would think about that part for a moment before trying to get free* Internet access (Which the FCC plan won’t even initially provide, they call it “affordable” so it’ll probably be a subsidized item.).

* Free until you notice your take home pay becomes even less.

Fun With The Census

I’m sure those of you reading this site regularly realize I like to mess with people. I also recognize the census as an enumeration of the population only. On the other hand you get fined major change for not answering questions and fined even more if you answer untruthfully. So here is my guide to messing with the Census Bureau while filling out every answer and doing so truthfully.

If something requires a number remember Roman numerals are fun. This site has a hand decimal to Roman numeral converter you can use.

Filling out your phone number is different than you wages of course. Phone numbers usually appear 555-555-5555 but we never use the numbers as a value. Instead we use the numbers positionally saying the number is “five, five, five,” etc. So feel free to fill out the phone number as VVV-VVV-VVVV.

Gender is pretty straight forward unless of course your a hermaphrodite. I believe in that case you need to check both boxes. Also if you’re transgender it’s unclear if you are supposed to put down your genetic gender or your identified gender. So for those of you this applies to have fun with that.

You’ll notice the census is really keen on race. Well my race is human. I think that applies to everybody filling out the form.

I didn’t get any extended portion so I don’t know what fun you could have with that. But those are some fun games you can play with the Census Bureau. Also note this isn’t legal advice, it’s advice on how to fuck with people. If you fuck with somebody they are likely to fuck with you back so remember that.

Second Amendment Rights For Sale

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell points out an Arizona training company called Insight Firearms Training Development (Not to be mistaken for InSight Firearms of Seattle) is writing customers to oppose Arizona’s House Bill 2347 and Senate Bill 1108. These bills are the ones on the table that would allow Arizona citizens to carry without having to obtain a permit.

Apparently Insight Firearms Training Development make enough money off of permit training that they want to ensure Arizona doesn’t becomes a true right to carry state. I find this sickening to a degree that I can’t put into words. These are the type of people who aren’t helping the cause and those of us for the second amendment should boycott such companies into bankruptcy.

Political Party Nonsense

I try to avoid talking about politics in a generic term here because it’s a boring topic that only incites anger. But after some berating for not being a member of “The Right Party” I thought I’d drop some note on here. Everybody who knows me eventually learns that I describe myself as a libertarian. Notice the lower case “l” there? Libertarian with a capital “L” is the name of a party while libertarian with a lower case “l” is a political belief.

This is important as I’m not a member of any party. People seem unable to wrap their heads around this concept though. For instance although I’m a libertarian I attended the Republican caucus. Why? Because I want to see Tom Emmers get the candidacy for the Republican party. I work with individuals who agree with my ideals (At least as close to my ideals as I can get but more on that in a minute). I don’t give a wooden nickle if a candidate is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or even a member of the Communist Party (Granted most of these parties are unlikely to have a candidate I support), if they agree with what I believe I’ll support them.

And this my friends brings us to the Tea Party. Notice the capital letters? Yes I’m not talking about the tea party movement but the various political entities call themselves the Tea Party. I have nothing against these groups but my rant is going to be focused on certain individuals. Many people who have become disenfranchised with the Republican and Libertarian parties have moved to one of the various Tea Parties. I got into a conversation with one of these people a while back. His belief was the Republican party is corrupt (No duh, it’s a political party. They’re all corrupt.) and the Libertarian Party is now evil because they let Bob Barr run as their presidential candidate. That meant he had to jump ship to another party because Odin forbid you actually try to correct the problems in a currently established party.

Well our conversation eventually lead to me being a libertarian. This is the point of the conversation where things turned emotional for him. He got onto a long rant about how the Libertarian Party is corrupt and all real supporters of the Constitution must jump ship and go to the pure and perfect Tea Party. He couldn’t grasp the whole concept of me being a libertarian not a member of the Libertarian Party. It was inconceivable to him that somebody could identify themselves by a political belief instead of political party. And herein lies the problem in my opinion.

Our political system has become about party memberships instead of political beliefs. People will often join a political party because of one strong belief and ignore the fact that party doesn’t agree with any other belief they hold. For example many people join the Republican Party because they believe abortion should be illegal. On the other hand many people join the Democrat Party because they want gay marriage to be legal. In both of these cases the issue mentioned is the primary core belief and they are will to ignore all other party beliefs because, I believe, they are unable to wrap their head around the idea of not being a member of a party. For example using the cases I set forth the person who joined the Republican Party may be in support of gay marriage or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The person who joined the Democrat Party may be against government controlled health care and labor unions. These individuals are fine with imperfect candidates (Perfect being those who completely agree with your beliefs). There are even people in these parties who are willing for force themselves into believing the rest of the party’s platform so they can be a “full member.”

Then you have the Tea Party members (Once again note the capital letters). Many of the people in these parties are unwilling to accept imperfect candidates. Often times members of the Tea Party were at one time members of the Republican Party, then left to join the Libertarian Party, and finally left for the Tea Party. When prodded why they left X Party they will usually say it’s because of one member who wasn’t perfect. What these people want is in fact impossible. They want to be a member of a party that consists only of people who completely agree with them. In other words they want to be involved in an organization that consists only of themselves. No two people have the exact same ideals hence you can’t have a party consisting only of people who agree with you.

So here comes to point I want to make here. Learn the difference between ideals and political organizations. Realize you don’t have to be a member of any single party. This is the only way you’ll be able to work exclusively with candidates you like. Don’t like the person the Republican Party fielded? That’s OK because you can go vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. Are you angry with who the Democrat Party picked? Then go vote for the Green Party person. Is there an individual running independently that you like? Go support that candidate. For those of you who joined a Tea Party because the other parties are all “evil and corrupted political groups run by special interests” come talk to me in ten years (If your specific Tea Party lasts that long). Chances are you’ll find that at some point during that decade span your Tea Party fielded an “unworthy” candidate and thus you’ll want to jump ship to a new “pure and perfect” political party. Or come join those of us who have no party affiliation and thus have flexibility.

In summary get people who get over the party mindset and start thinking for themselves again. Rant mode disengaged.

I Liked It Better When I Didn’t Have Anything to Report On

Usually the gun rights front here in Minnesota is relatively quiet. That is until Mr. Paymar gets a bug up his butt and decides to introduce anti-gun legislation. This is more of a heads up than anything since I just got NRA-ILA alert today (Sorry I’ve been busy). The two previously mentioned anti-gun laws are being heard today by the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Sub-Committee at noon. My last letter writing efforts went out to everybody on all three of the involved committees but phone calls in the next hour certainly won’t hurt. The bills are:

House File 2960 would force private sales at gun shows to go through background checks. Gun prohibitionists, like Representative Paymar, falsely claim that a large number of criminals get their guns from gun shows; however, the most recent federal study on gun shows put the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.

House File 1396 includes a provision that would allow a court that issues a domestic abuse protective order to prohibit the respondent from having any contact with a PET OR COMPANION ANIMAL OWNED, POSSESSED, OR KEPT by a party protected in the order. This new provision could have serious consequences for Minnesotans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The first one is obviously the one I’m most worried about. Minnesota is a pretty leftist state and these kinds of bill do have a chance of getting through. The last thing I want is to be legally required to beg the government for permission to sell my private property. Let’s hope these two get shut down in committee.

REAL ID Won’t Go Away

Even though no citizen wants it out politicians are ensuring some form of REAL ID gets passed into law. This time it’s being introduced to stop the “immigration” problem. From the article:

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

That’s right a card you’d be required to get in order to work. Doesn’t that just sound like big brother plus some? Of course Chuck Schumer’s name would appear on this project. What a bastard. Americans really want to beg the government for permission to work, make money, and live in this country. Also you know it’s a bad idea when:

Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards.

When most European countries do something you know it’s not good for individual liberty of human rights. Let’s not lie to ourselves our government is going to do everything it can to develop some federal method of tracking as many citizens as they can. But hey at least they aren’t using the terrorist card on this one.

Japan Sounds Like an Anti-Gunner’s Wet Dream

No not for the usual reasons such as Japan’s overly strict gun laws. But when I read this article on a Cold War era treaty Japan had that allowed nuclear armed United State’s naval units to port the following exert struck me:

The secret pact is controversial because after World War II and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan adopted the three “non-nuclear principles” – not making or possessing nuclear weapons, nor allowing them on to its soil.

Now I’m the first person to say nuclear weapon proliferation is a bad idea (Although we in the United States have no right to tell other countries they can’t build or own them). The things are vicious but if everybody else has them you really need to as well less you get nuked and not have a method of retaliation (Mutually assured destruction is the only reason I believe the Cold War stayed cold).

But Japan’s mentality mirrors that of some anti-gun and anti-self defense advocates. The idea is to blame the devices not those who are wielding it. For instance some people who are mugged at gun point becomes advocates for banning firearms since they incorrectly believe that will disarm the criminals and make streets safer. Japan seemed to develop the same attitude towards nuclear weapons. Since they got nuked they decided that ensuring there are no nukes in their country will prevent them from getting nuked again.

I just found that interesting since I’d imagine the only country to be nuked in a time of war would like a means of ensuring it doesn’t happen again (Once again mutually assured destruction). But of course this piece was also interesting:

The secret deal was sealed in the 1960s between US and Japanese diplomats, who agreed that the transit of nuclear arms through ports did not constitute the introduction of weapons into Japan, and so did not require prior consultation on the US side.

Much like anti-gunners are willing to call the police to be a proxy of violence Japan seemed just fine with our nuclear capable ships being in their waters. If Japan was so dead set against nukes you would think they would be angry about anybody having them. But it’s easier to take the moral high road when you can decry violence while still having somebody defend you if somebody brings violence upon you.

Some People Don’t Get Private Property

I’m been harping about Representative Paymar’s attempt to destroy the property rights of gun owners here in Minnesota. Well since my place of business gets a subscription to the Star Tribune I thought I’d check the Letters to the Editor section and see if anybody wrote about it. Two people did and they obviously don’t understand private property either. The first was written by Stephen Harlan-Marks of Robbinsdale:

Before gun lovers get the idea that state Rep. Michael Paymar’s gun show bill would take rifles from hunters or even handguns from those who feel they need them for protection (“Effort to tighten Minnesota’s gun law getting folks riled up,” March 3), let’s be clear about the bill’s objective. How many Minnesotans think anyone who wishes should be allowed to walk into a gun show and buy 10 AK-47s without a background check, much less a look at the terror watch list? I can’t imagine anyone needing sort of firepower to shoot pheasants or even to ward off a would-be burglar.

The second letter was penned by Peter Clark of Roseville:

Interesting and shocking: On the front page, an article about how upset some people would be if they had to get a permit to buy a gun at a gun show. Then on the first page of the Twin Cities section, the headline “‘Please don’t kill nobody else'”. Maybe gun advocates should pause and think about what they would say if one of their family members were shot down. Remember, guns don’t kill people — people with guns kill people. Thank you, Rep. Paymar, for wanting to set things right. It’s far too easy to get guns today.

So to counter the ignorance I sent the following letter:

After reading a couple letters to the editor dealing with Representative Paymar’s “gun show” bill I believe several facts need to be stated. First and foremost this bill isn’t about gun shows it’s about private sales. Here in Minnesota if I want to sell a firearm, my personal property, I may do so without going through a federally licensed dealer. Paymar’s bill is an attempt to eliminate that right. Private individuals are not allowed to use the FBI’s NICS background check system therefore, if this bill passes, anybody in Minnesota who wants to sell a firearm would have to pay a federally licensed dealer to perform the background check and do the transfer.

The reason gun shows are brought into this is because people will go to gun shows to sell their firearms. However a massive majority of people selling firearms at gun shows are federally licensed dealers and therefore must perform background checks. Additionally a private individual can only sell so many firearms before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) considers that person to be “in the business” and thus must obtain a federal firearms license. So you will not have private individuals selling “10 AK-47s” at a gun show.

Let’s look at a few other facts. The ATF did a study where they concluded that less than 2% of firearms obtained by criminals were purchased at gun shows. Furthermore background checks do not prevent anything. The killers at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood both used legally purchased firearms from federally licensed dealers. This means background checks were performed on both killers.

Finally the number of guns being purchased by Minnesotans has skyrocketed while our rate of violent crime has been plummeting. In this environment why is there a need to add further government interference and burden to the lives on Minnesotans?

Of course being the paper’s nickname is the Red Star for a reason I doubt mine will ever get printed.

Something That’s Always Annoyed Me

I rarely touch the Health Care debate but there is one little thing about it that’s always annoyed me. Take a look at the picture:

Nothing something odd, besides the condescending ass in the center. Those “doctors” behind him are wearing lab coats. When the Hell is the last time you’ve seen doctors wearing lab coats outside of the office? Hell most doctors I know don’t wear lab coats half of the time they’re in the office.

Does the president believe the American people are so stupid that we can’t identify a person as a “doctor” unless they’re wearing a lab coat? That’s the message I get out of that.