Tag: Superdickery

Not This Crap Again

Jay over at MArooned stumbled upon some major stupidity. Somebody is suing Starbucks because they dared to serve him hot tea:

According to the complaint, the plaintiff Zeynep Inanli was served tea that was “unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe,” at a Starbucks store at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan.

As a result of Starbucks’ negligence, the plaintiff suffered “great physical pain and mental anguish,” including the burns, the complaint said.

Of course they threw in the mental anguish. It’s easy to make millions when unspecified damages are thrown in. This would be a fine country if it wasn’t for all the fucking frivolous lawsuits.

Honduras Still Receiving Backlash for Enforcing Their Constititution

A while ago there was quite a stink over Honduras actually enforcing their Constitution and removing their then president from power. Well a lot of well respected neighboring states including Venezuela and our own government didn’t like the idea of a country actually obeying it’s own laws and threw up a stink.

Now they are threatening (promising?) to not attend the yearly European Union-Latin America summit if Honduras’s current president, Porfirio Lobo, attends. See they don’t recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Lobo’s seat because a potential dictator was removed lawfully to put Lobo in place. I love this:

An aide to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio Garcia, said: “If Honduras attends, then at least 10 Latin American presidents will not go to Madrid, starting with the president of Brazil.”

I wonder what types of governments those 10 countries have. Probably something along the lines of what Venezuela has which is idealistically opposed to what the summit is apparently about:

But correspondents say its goals of development and democracy-building remain far off.

Yeah that’s not sounding like a threat so much as a promise.

No Miranda Rights For You

Dvorak Uncensored lead me to another reason for me to hate most of our politicians. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to deny reading Miranda rights to “suspect terrorists.” This another one of those bills that may look acceptable on paper until you look at what Senator Graham views as a terrorist:

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Yes the suspect is a terrorist. Note that wording. The suspect is not a potential terrorist, he or she is a terrorist. I’ve often argued that terrorism is akin to child molestation in this country in that you are guilty upon accusation. In either of the two cases you are pretty much screwed because even if you are found guilty the stain of the accusation is permanent and is as good as being found guilty. I will note another thing here:

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

If the suspected terrorist is an immediate threat Miranda rights can be ignore. So why do we need another law? Oh that’s right because you could avoid having to inform detainees of their rights simply by accusing them of terrorism.

Now truth be told you’re an idiot if you don’t know your rights. I’m not saying having to read Miranda rights is a good or bad thing here (personally I think they’re a good thing). What I’m saying is we shouldn’t be making exceptions like these to laws. It’s a slippery slope to say the least. The next thing that would be up I believe would be an exemption to a fast and speedy trial for suspected terrorists holding an American citizenship caught within the United States.

Likewise Mr. Graham’s attitude that suspected terrorists are automatically guilty is disturbing. Nobody who is making laws should have this attitude.

What is this Supposed to Be, Some Kind of Sick Joke

Hey want to know a secret? I hate the United Nations. Wait that’s not a secret at all. The U.N. is nothing more than a farce pretending to be an organization working for equal human rights. What they actually mean is equal human rights so long as they’re convenient to government power. That’s the joke of it all really, the U.N. is an organization made up entirely of world governments so you can guess their agenda is slightly slanted.

But this takes the cake:

High off its success in keeping Iran from joining the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, the U.S. appears to have missed its chance to object to Iran’s selection to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which was affirmed during a so-called U.N. vote this week.

Yup Iran was elected to the Commission of the Status of Women. You know because Iran is so big on the rights of women and all.

Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

There has been a lot of hullabaloo over Arizona’s new law that has claimed to give police the right to ask for your papers so to speak. With all the hysteria surrounding the bill I decided to go read the bill for myself. I’m not a lawyer but I can generally derive laws from text to an extent. It didn’t take long for me to find the clause that’s causing all the uproar:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Talk about vague. I found nothing else in this bill that specifies what lawful contact means, what reasonable suspicion means (usually it’s a cheap cop out that gives officers the authority to make up any old reason for searching your person or vehicle), or what they mean by when practicable.

I believe there are always grounds for concern when vague laws are passed. With the wording present seems to make it perfectly legal for an officer to walk up to you and ask for your papers. As no guidelines are in the bill restricting what “reasonable suspicion” is the officer can pretty much make up any old excuse (the suspect was talking in Spanish, etc.). After carousing through the entire bill I can say that yes this is a horrible piece of legislation based on the above mentioned clause.

This law enacts a guilty until proven innocent clause. According the the Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States (and common sense):

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

The entire text of the decision can be read here. It’s a good read as it does go over the history of presumption of innocence. And that is my major quarrel with Arizona’s new law. It violates the basic idea that a person is presumed innocent. Remember no proof of a crime needs to exist for an officer to ask for your papers, just reasonable suspicion (which could be anything really).

Whether you want stronger immigration laws and/or stricter laws against illegal aliens in this country I think you can agree that assuming guilt is no sane way to approach this topic in a free country (and if you think the idea of guilty until proven innocent is a good idea may I suggest moving to China). A person should never have to be assumed guilty without hard evidence collected tying them to the said crime. Having “reasonable suspicion” isn’t hard evidence nor does it constitute an investigation. It just means the officer had a hunch or gut feeling and was able to articulate it well enough to be considered “reasonable” (reasonable of course being different depending on the person you talk to).

Personally I think this is a horrible law that goes against the very ideas this country’s justice system is founded on.

Blame Game is Go

Tam points out that Mayor Daley of Chicago has decided to attempt going above the authority of the Supreme Court:

Six years after the state Supreme Court dismissed his $433 million lawsuit against the gun industry, Mayor Daley today called for a change of venue — to the World Court normally reserved for disputes between nations and crimes against humanity.

Wrapping up the sixth annual Richard J. Daley Global Cities Forum, Daley convinced more than a dozen of his counterparts from around the world to approve a resolution urging “redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world” in The Hague.

Yes Major Daley, now to be known on this blog as High Priest Douche, wants to take gun industry members to the world court in The Hague. This court is generally only used for crimes against all humanity, not developing devices that help liberate humanity. The bullshit is thick with this one:

“This is coming from international mayors. They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America. … We don’t want those anymore because guns kill and injure people,’ ” Daley told a news conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“If we ship over poison to a country, don’t you think we should be responsible for it? That’s what they’re saying: ‘Be responsible for what you manufacture and sell in my country.’ … You have to think outside the box. You have to be [aggressive] about how you protect your people.”

Guns kill and injure people? By that logic you guys no longer want our cars… oh wait you probably don’t. By that logic you guys don’t want cars, period.

Every time an anti-gunner brings up the phrase, “guns kill people” I present a logical experiment (because logic truly is the anti-gunner’s worst nightmare). Let’s say I sit you down at a table and on that table I place a loaded firearm pointing at you. What will happen? Nothing, you’ll be fine. Now let’s say I put a punk who wants to kill you behind that gun what will happen? You’ll probably be shot. Now let’s say I take the gun out of the picture and just have the punk across the table what will happen? He’ll probably kill you with his bear hands.

The gun is incapable of killing somebody only the person wielding it can kill somebody. Guns are not an industrial pollutant or poison. If you release cyanide into the water and people drink it they can die. If you release guns into the water nobody will die from drinking it. It’s not a poison.

But logic isn’t something High Priest Douche Daley is good with. He only knows corruption and how to avoid the law (in this case the law of the Supreme Court). He didn’t get what he wanted so he’s trying to go to somebody who he hopes will give him what he wants. What if the world court ruled against him? Would he demand a new solar system court be created with a seat on Mars? Seriously this guy is a corrupt bastard.

Finally I’m going to throw out there that instead of thinking guns are poison think of them as liberation. Guns have help citizens living under tyranny to overthrow their governments… oh yeah that’s why these international mayors don’t like guns. It would give people a fighting chance against their corrupt rule.

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Bill

Snowflakes in Hell brings us an article that explains Super Douche Mayor Bloomberg’s “gun show loophole” bill he’s been pushing through a recent national campaign. You know what the most important detail is though? The bill goes well beyond gun show regulations:

Or consider a licensed firearms dealer who never sets foot inside a gun show. He conducts all his sales from his store. The Bloomberg bill hugely increases various prison terms that can be imposed on licensed dealers. This has nothing to do with gun shows.

And of course this bill has nothing to do with any loophole either but is in essence a bill meant to stop gun shows in this country all together:

For example, gun show promoters do not sell guns. The promoters just operate the shows, renting table space to the people who do sell guns. The Bloomberg bill would give the U.S. attorney general unlimited power to impose fees and regulations on gun show operators. An anti-gun attorney general could make the fees so exorbitant that no one could operate a gun show. Extremely complex and time-consuming registration forms that would have to be filled out every week could also drive gun shows out of business.

So that’s how he plans to fix the improperly named “loophole.” No gun show, no problem apparently. This is how anti-gunners have to do things. They claim there is a problem and then they make a law that doesn’t address the problem itself but attempts to completely ban everything related to their believed problem.

I’ve addressed the fact that there is no gun show loophole. What the anti-gunners are trying to eliminate are property rights. Under current United States law (which can be different from state to state, I’m talking federal here) if you want to sell one of your guns you can, no problem. What Super Douche Bloomberg and his posse want is to require all gun sales, including private ones, to go through the NICS. Of course they also know that only federally licensed dealers can access the NICS and hence this bill would eliminate your right to sell a firearm that you own unless you pay a third party (a federally licensed dealer) to perform a NICS check and transfer. How would you like it if you had to go to a third party and pay them a fee in order to get permission to sell your car, television, table, or home? It doesn’t sound like a good thing when put into that context does it?

Make no mistake, Super Douche doesn’t hate guns he hates your right to do day to day tasks without being dependent on the government. To put it nicely he’s a power hungry control freak.

The Stuff People Agree To

Have you heard of an end user license agreement (EULA)? You probably have. It’s a contract you agree to when you install most non-open source applications. Most people just click “I Accept” and move on with their lives without reading it. Of course sometimes the damndest things are agreed to like the Immortal Souls clause inserted by a online shopping site to make a point:

By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non-transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions.

Well Sony, no stranger to being complete asshats, an interesting clause in their EULA (I bring it up now because people started talking about it but this has been in the EULA for some time):

From time to time, SCE may provide updates, upgrades or services to your PS3™ system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new offerings.

Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE’s online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3™ system.

Additionally, you may not be able to view your own content if it includes or displays content that is protected by authentication technology. Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality. It is recommended that you regularly back up any data on the hard disk that is of a type that can be backed up.

Translated in to standard English it means Sony can push updates out to your system without requiring you to accept it or having to notify you that they’re doing it. If the update bricks your system that’s your problem and you’ll have to pay to get it fixed. Likewise they can erase any data on your system they please without notification and giving you no recourse.

Of course I’m just using Sony as a punching bag at the moment because their asshats. In truth many companies have similar clauses in their EULAs. Which is the point I’m trying to make here. Most people have no idea what they’re agreeing to when they click that “I Accept” button on the EULA window.

Let’s bring up another example, iTunes. Did you know that you can’t use iTunes to develop, design, manufacture, or produce missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? Well you can’t because you agreed to the EULA.

What I’m really trying to drive home is this, read every contract you sign and every EULA you agree to. The shit that gets snuck in is absurd. It’s shit like this that pushes me towards free open-source software more and more every day.

Representative Jim Moran is a Moron

It didn’t take long for some politicians to get their panties all in a bunch over the Second Amendment March. Walls of the City gives a quick overview of the Second Amendment March and links to this fucktard.

According to Representative Moron Moran:

“These anti-government demonstrations are fueled by the belief that our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment are somehow under attack and urgent action is needed,” he said. “While this may be a powerful rallying point for special interest groups, the claim could not be further from the truth.”

Really? With people like Super Douche Mayor Bloomberg and his posse trying to ban firearm sales between private individuals, California looking to ban the open carrying of unloaded firearms, doctors asking children if their parents own firearms and recording their answers, state representatives attempting to ban of specific semi-automatic rifles, etc., etc. I think the second amendment is pretty much under constant fire.

Whenever we gun owners have become complacent politicians like this prick pushed through gun control measures. Just look at the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment, the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Brady Bill for examples of what happens when we gun owners get lazy. He also has this to say:

“In fact,” he continued, “much to my dismay, virtually every action the federal government has taken in the past decade has weakened commonsense gun laws already on the books.”

There is no such thing as common sense gun laws. The only common sense gun law in America is the second amendment which states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In fact as gun control laws and struck down the only notable thing we can find is crime is going down. Although this doesn’t prove more guns equal less crime it does show gun control laws do not prevent crime.

Either way we need to remain ever vigilant less pricks like Representative Moran and his ilk start pushing through gun control laws without resistance.