Tag: Shut Up Slave

Well This Changes Everything

Remember the 7 year-old kid who was suspended from school because he ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun? Well new information has come to light that changes everything:

Laurie Pritchard, Anne Arundel’s director of legal services, said that the object central to the case had been misportrayed, as well as the reason for the discipline.

“First of all, it wasn’t a Pop-Tart,” she said. “It was a breakfast pastry. And he was not suspended because he chewed his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.” He was suspended for “an ongoing classroom disruption,” she said.

Holy shit, why weren’t we informed of this right away? If we had known he had shaped a breakfast pastry into a gun instead of a Pop-Tart we could have demanded the kid’s head!

OK, the actual content of the story isn’t quite that simple. But that quote was gold. The school is now trying to claim that the child was suspended because of a history of behavioral problems:

School officials produced a lengthy log of various types of incidents. They argued that they had made many efforts to address the boy’s behavioral issues. The family said they had not seen the list before and had been unaware of a number of the incidents.

There’s a problem with this narrative though. If he was suspended for a history of behavioral issues why was he not suspended during one of those incidents? Why did they choose an incident where the kid ate a Pop-Tart, sorry, breakfast pastry into a firearm to suspend him? Is eating food into abstract shapes a behavioral issue?

I’m sure the school will go to great extent to justify the suspension. We’ll probably be told that the kid held a black mass in the school cafeteria or something along those lines. School administrators don’t like to admit wrongdoing and will go to absolutely absurd lengths to throw their petty authority around.

John McCain Opens His Mouth and Reaffirms That He’s an A-Hole

One good thing I can say about Barack Obama winning the 2008 presidential election is that John McCain has basically faded into irrelevancy. But every so often McCain feels the need to remind America that he’s still alive (which is kind of shocking when you look at him) and to reaffirm the fact that he is still a total asshole. During one of his recent interviews McCain decided to give us his opinion on the surveillance state:

“It’s the world we’re living in. You don’t like it, but everything I say I expect to be recorded,” McCain told Patrick. He went on to defend its place in the lives of American citizens:

“It’s just the way we live. It is something you’ve got to accept. I don’t particularly like it, but it is what it is.”

McCain dismissed a poll that showed 53% of Americans believe that their phone calls are being recorded. When asked by Patrick if they are, McCain laughed, “no, no.”

“Young people aren’t particularly happy. We’ve forgotten a little bit about 9/11, and how if we’d intercepted the right communications we might have prevented 9/11,” McCain continued.

So we just have to accept it? I’ve got news for McCain, we don’t have to accept shit. Thankfully we have the tools to render his beloved surveillance apparatus impotent. And if McCain expects to be recorded I say we give him what he expects. Let’s follow him around 24/7 with cameras, tap his phones, and stream everything he does on the Internet for all to see. I guarantee that he won’t enjoy it and will sick his thugs on us for violating his privacy and harassing him.

Let’s also take a minute to talk about the 9/11 card. It has been pulled out every time the state wanted to implement some new draconian law that infringes on our supposed rights. After 12 years of infringements the card has worn thin. Especially when you consider that the vast surveillance apparatus currently in place hasn’t foiled a single terrorist attack. If the system hasn’t managed to foil a terrorist attack in 12 years it’s pretty hard to claim it could have foiled 9/11.

I can’t imagine what four years of McCain would have been like. OK, I can. It would have been exactly the same as the first four years we suffered under Obama but without Obama’s pretty bitchin’ speech writers (while the man’s policies are crap I must admit that he did hire some excellent speech writers for his first term).

I’ll Scratch Your Back If You Scratch Mine

Fascism is basically circlejerk economics. Government officials are jerking off corporate cronies while corporate cronies are jerking off government officials. This system works very well if you’re at the top but most of us aren’t at the top so we get to suffer protected monopolies, inferior products, and shitty service.

Another side effect of fascism is that government will always swoop in to protect its corporate cronies. Right now the White House is demanding that its corporate partners who hand over customer data to the National Security Agency (NSA) received legal immunity:

The White House has asked legislators crafting competing reforms of the National Security Agency to provide legal immunity for telecommunications firms that provide the government with customer data, the Guardian has learned.

In a statement of principles privately delivered to lawmakers some weeks ago to guide surveillance reforms, the White House said it wanted legislation protecting “any person who complies in good faith with an order to produce records” from legal liability for complying with court orders for phone records to the government once the NSA no longer collects the data in bulk.

In other words the White House doesn’t want any actual reform. Unless entities handing over data to the NSA face consequences there’s no motivation for them to not do so even when they know a request is illegal. This is especially true when you consider how much money many companies make off of government data requests.

As an aside, it’s funny how the White House never demanded whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden received legal immunity for revealing government corruption. I guess our illegal secrets aren’t the same as the government’s illegal secrets.

Checks and Balances

Back in junior high school we spent a lot of time in civics class discussing the system of checks and balances that exists between the three branches of government. It was a wonderful fairytale about how no single branch of the government could ever attain absolute power because the other two branches would stomp it down. What wasn’t covered was the truth, which is that all three branches are playing on the same team. When the executive branch wants a law the legislative branch writes and passes it. When the legislative branch wants a law enforce the executive branch dutifully enforces it. When either branch want somebody to back their actions up they ask the judicial branch. It’s really just one big government circle jerk.

But the judicial branch has another option available to it. Instead of ruling in favor of the actions of the other two branches it can simple opt to not hear a case:

The Supreme Court declined Monday to resolve the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s bulk telephone metadata surveillance program, leaving intact what a lower-court judge described as an “almost-Orwellian” surveillance effort in which the metadata from every phone call to and from the United States is catalogued by US spies.

Surveillance state got you down? Are the people unhappy about being spied on? Is the executive branch demanding you rule its actions constitutional? Do you want to avoid a public relations nightmare but are stuck between a rock and a hard place? No problem, simply refuse to hear the case!

With the simple act of refusing to hear the case the Supreme Court managed to make the issue of phone surveillance somebody else’s problem, which likely saved it from the wrath of both the executive branch and the people being spied on. It’s a wonderful way to avoid being a check against abuses of power and tipping the balance of public opinion against you. Good job guys!

War Criminal Claims American Gun Culture is Out of Balance

I’m still laughing about this:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

This coming from a war criminal. Talk about hilarious!

But few people are discussing the irony of a war criminal lambasting gun owners. Instead they’re talking about supporting whatever candidate the Republican Party runs against Hillary (because Hillary is almost certainly going to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate). The fear machine is already ramping up as I’ve started seeing comments on several gun forums that claim Hillary will be even worse than Obama. Although this will fall mostly on deaf ears I might as well make an attempt to point out the game being played. I again return to Noam Chomsky’s great quote about political debate:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate

Here in the United States the oligarchs have successfully narrow the spectrum of acceptable opinions to the point where only one opinion is truly acceptable. It doesn’t matter if you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative, if you play the Republican versus Democrat game you’re arguing in favor of the oligarchy. Within this narrow spectrum only a handful of issues are allowed to be debated. Gun rights, the legalities of abortion, how open the borders should be, whether we’ve always been at war with Eurasia or Eastasia, and so on. The trick is that all of these issues are very emotional for those who are invested. And those issues are almost always argued in a manner that insinuates that our rulers have a right to make decisions about what we can and cannot do.

So long as we all continue to fall for their tricks and play their game we’re never going to be free. Unfortunately the oligarchy is good at playing the game and know exactly what buttons to push to get the results they desire. By simply referring to the gun culture as being out of balance an army of gun owners are whipped up into a Republican frenzy and not even thinking about the prospects of a society devoid of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

[Digital] Papers Please

As the popular phrase “On the Internet nobody know that you’re a dog.” tries to explain the Internet is a bastion of anonymity. You can be whoever you want to be when posting online and if you properly utilize effective anonymity tools there is no practical way for anybody to connect your online identity to your real identify. This shield of anonymity enables truly free speech, which means the government wants to stop it. Meet the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) initiative, an attempt by the executive branch to force people to obtain a license to use the Internet. This license isn’t merely are method for the state to identify you as being qualified to use the Internet, it’s an attempt to remove the shield of anonymity that protects free speech online:

The draft NSTIC says that, instead of a national ID card, it “seeks to establish an ecosystem of interoperable identity service providers and relying parties where individuals have the choice of different credentials or a single credential for different types of online transactions,” which can be obtained “from either public or private sector identity providers.” (p. 6) In other words, the governments want a lot of different companies or organizations to be able to do the task of confirming that a person on the Internet is who he or she claims to be.

Decentralized or federated ID management systems are possible, but like all ID systems, they definitely pose significant privacy issues. 1 There’s little discussion of these issues, and in particular, there’s no attention to how multiple ID’s might be linked together under a single umbrella credential. A National Academies study, Who Goes There?: Authentication Through the Lens of Privacy, warned that multiple, separate, unlinkable credentials are better for both security and privacy (pp. 125-132). Yet the draft NSTIC doesn’t discuss in any depth how to prevent or minimize linkage of our online IDs, which would seem much easier online than offline, and fails to discuss or refer to academic work on unlinkable credentials (such as that of Stefan Brands, or Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya).

Providing a uniform online ID system could pressure providers to require more ID than necessary. The video game company Blizzard, for example, recently indicated it would implement a verified ID requirement for its forums before walking back the proposal only after widespread, outspoken criticism from users.

Pervasive online ID could likewise encourage lawmakers to enact access restrictions for online services, from paying taxes to using libraries and beyond. Website operators have argued persuasively that they cannot be expected to tell exactly who is visiting their sites, but that could change with a new online ID mechanism. Massachusetts recently adopted an overly broad online obscenity law; it takes little imagination to believe states would require NSTIC implementation individuals to be able to access content somehow deemed to be “objectionable.”

I will go so far as to argue that truly free speech isn’t possible without the availability of anonymity. We see this whenever a company sues a customer who wrote a bad review, the state kidnaps a businessman, somebody is kidnapped for holding the wrong political belief. Imagine how much easier it would be for a business to sue anybody who left a negative review of their products if the NSTIC initiative was realized. Confirming the identify of the reviewer would be simple and that would put anybody leaving a negative review at risk of a lawsuit.

The only reason I can perceive for the executive branch’s push for its NSTIC initiative is for squashing political dissidence and suppressing critics of its corporate partners. Problems of authentication, authorization, and accounting have already been solved in numerous ways that allow an individual to keep their online identity separate from their real life identity. There are even methods that allow a user’s real life identify to be verified (which is what my certificate provider does). Nothing in the NSTIC initiative solves a problem that hasn’t been solved already. It merely introduces another way to solve these problems in a manner that centralized information for easy federal and corporate access.

Don’t Worry Mr. President, The Senate Has Your Back

The best thing about having three branches of government is that you can get three separate affirmations for all government activities. I kind of feel bad for dictators, kings, and other monarchs. When they make a decision they don’t have anybody else to back them up. But here in American when the government does something it’s first written and voted on by Congress, signed by the President, and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

A few days ago President Obama was concerned that he might actually have to release details about the people who he ordered to be executed by drones. Fortunately the Senate reassured him that it had his back:

WASHINGTON — The Senate has quietly stripped a provision from an intelligence bill that would have required President Obama to make public each year the number of people killed or injured in targeted killing operations in Pakistan and other countries where the United States uses lethal force.

The move highlights the continued resistance inside the government about making these operations, primarily carried out using armed drones, more accountable to public scrutiny. In a letter to the Senate earlier this month, James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, expressed concern that a public report would undermine the effectiveness of the operations.

And with that simple removal the Senate affirmed that the President’s practice of withholding information about those executed by drones is totally cool. We’re still waiting for the Supreme Court’s affirmation of this behavior but that should be coming soon since the case is moving through the judicial system:

A federal appeals panel in Manhattan ordered the release on Monday of key portions of a classified Justice Department memorandum that provided the legal justification for the targeted killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who intelligence officials contend had joined Al Qaeda and died in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

The unanimous three-judge panel, reversing a lower court decision, said the government had waived its right to keep the analysis secret in light of numerous public statements by administration officials and the Justice Department’s release of a “white paper” offering a detailed analysis of why targeted killings were legal.

I’m sure the Supreme Court will reverse this decision quick, fast, and in a hurry. We can’t have the government going around disagreeing with itself, it creates a bad image.

Happy Loyalty Day You Stupid Serfs

Are you a good an obedient serf? Do you always do what your oligarchs commands of you? If so I have good news. Today is your day! That’s right, today is Loyalty Day:

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America and pay tribute to the heritage of American freedom.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2014, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

For those of you not familiar with the history of Loyalty Day, it was first observed during the First Red Scare as a response to uppity socialists who chose May 1st to remember the 1886 Haymarket Massacre. During the Second Red Scare Congress passed observance of Loyalty Day into law.

It might seem pretty absurd that Congress would waste time passing the observance of Loyalty Day into law but when you look at the big picture it makes sense. The United States government opted for fascism, which made socialism its ideological enemy (national socialists really hate international socialists and vice versa). Hoping to stomp out its ideological rivals the United States government worked very hard to instill hatred of international socialism in the American people. This resulted in many stupid things included two Red Scares, the Cold War, and an absolutely retarded level of nationalism. Loyalty Day is merely the result of the retarded level of nationalism that exists in this country.

Now get out there, wave your flag, and pledge your lifelong obedience to the oligarchs that run this nation!

An Argument for Cryptocurrencies

The financial industry is a quagmire of censorship, morality policing, and market control. How the financial industry restricts markets is pretty easy to ascertain. Numerous laws exist that prohibit the transfer of money for transactions that the state has declared criminal. That makes the use of the financial industry to perform transactions for things like cannabis more difficult. But how does the financial industry perform censorship and police morality? By deciding who can and cannot have a bank account. We’ve seen this before with gun stores mysteriously having their bank accounts closed. But gun store owners aren’t the only target of the financial industry’s morality policing. The adult entertainment industry has also come under the financial industry’s ire:

Just as ISPs and search engines can become weak links for digital speech, too often financial service providers are pressured by the government to shut down speech or punish speakers who would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. It’s unclear whether this is an example of government pressure, an internal corporate decision, or some combination.

Chase has yet to give an official statement on why the accounts are being closed. At least one of the customers affected by Chase’s decision to shut down adult entertainers’ accounts, Teagan Presley, was told by Chase that her account was being shut down “because she’s considered ‘high risk.'” According to NY Daily News, her husband Joshua Lehman (whose account is also being closed) reports receiving conflicting information from Chase about why the accounts were being shut down:

I’ve heard three different reasons…When I went into our branch, they said it was the nature of our business. When I called, they said they were closing my personal account because my wife is an ‘infamous’ adult star. When I talked to my branch again, they said it wasn’t because we were in the adult industry but because we did business with a convicted felon.

This isn’t the first time Chase has been under fire for morality-based account closures. In 2013, Chase faced a lawsuit from the founder of MRG Entertainment for denying loans to people within the adult entertainment industry. And just a few months ago, Chase refused to process payments for Lovability, an online condom store. After bad press and public pressure, Chase reversed its decision, but it’s unclear whether Chase ever changed the policies that led to the decision in the first place.

Bank accounts are an Achilles heel for most “legitimate” businesses. Without one it’s difficult, if not impossible, to accept credit and debit card payments and many banks will only cash checks for account holders (or charge non-account holders a nasty cashing fee). Imagine if every bank refused to allow MidwayUSA or Brownells to have a bank account. Those stores would likely be finished.

Centrally controlled financial services, like most centrally controlled industries, are dangerous things to rely on. At any point those services can be used to enforce selected ideals. This is why I see decentralized financial systems, namely cryptocurrencies, as an important development.

I will use Bitcoin as an example because it is the most well known, but there are many cryptocurrencies out there with similar advantages. Bitcoin is a decentralized system. It doesn’t attempt to judge whether or not a transaction is legal, moral, or otherwise acceptable. The only thing the Bitcoin network attempts to do is ensure transactions are recorded and the appropriate amount of Bitcoin is transferred between accounts. Adult entertainers can bypass the financial industry’s censorship by accepting Bitcoin and may have to resort to doing so if things continue as they have been.

Cryptocurrencies really shine, at least in my opinion, because they enable the transfer of wealth without the risk of third-party judgements. As governments and industries (but I repeat myself) continue their efforts to control markets it will become more important to develop tools that allow people to bypass their controls. Obviously cryptocurrencies aren’t the be-all and end-all. Controls can still be inflicted by delivery services, manufacturers, and many other middlemen that are commonly involved in a transaction.

The Fourth Amendment Takes Another Hit Right to the Heart

Once again the Nazgûl have done an outstanding job of serving their master. This time they drove another stake through the heart of the already heavily staked Fourth Amendment:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip.

The 5-4 decision split the court’s two most conservative justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority and Justice Antonin Scalia penning the dissent.

Checkpoints should be much easier to setup now that this ruling has been made. Just have a gun on a cellphone a few miles away from the checkpoint call in an “anonymous tip” on every vehicle the passes. Reasonable suspicion has been a bit too rigorous for cops wanting to search a vehicle. Thankfully this ruling means that they can “receive an anonymous tip” and search go ahead with the search. Many opportunities have been opened by this ruling and I’m sure we’ll get to see them all as creative officers wanting to throw around their power put their minds to the civil rights bypassing grind stone.