Tag: You’re Doing it Wrong

Another Bad Idea By Amy Klobuchar

I have to agree with Techdirt, whenever Klobuchar presents legislation involving technology everybody “should run screaming for the hills.” Her history on technology-related bills makes it obvious that she doesn’t actually understand the technology she’s attempting to legislate. Her latest attempt at infusing the state with our technology is a bill that would require mobile phone manufacturers to include a kill switch that can be remotely actives in all of their phones:

Her latest move is to propose a bill that would mandate a kill switch in all mobile phones that could be activated remotely. The idea, here, is that this would allow those who had their phones stolen to disable them, rendering them (sorta) useless. It seems that, as with the other bills discussed above, Senator Klobuchar introduces these with the best of intentions, but with no clue about how technology works, or the likely “unintended” consequences of such things.

This legislation mandates what Apple is already doing, include a mechanism for iOS customers to render a device unusable should it get stolen. If this feature isn’t already included in Android and Windows Mobile I’m sure it will be soon. But the choice of including such a kill switch should be made by the manufacturer because, get this, some customers don’t want a remotely activated kill switch in their communication device. Such a feature could easily be abused. How easy would it be for a police force to call up a mobile phone manufacturer and tell them to disable all of their customers’ phones in an area where a protest is taking place?

Remote kill switches, like everything else in the universe, have positives and negatives. For some people the positives outweigh the negatives and they seek a devices with a remote kill switch. The opposite is true for other people, which causes them to seek out a device that doesn’t have a remote kill switch. I know it’s difficult for a statist to understand that the human race isn’t like an ant colony. Each person is an individual who had different wants and needs. Some of us want to order a giant rib eye steak and some of us want to order a salad. The choice should be left to the individual making it not mandated by some asshole in a marble building.

Another Republican Says Something Stupid

While I don’t waste my time watching some dude in a marble building give a speech I do like to read about highlights of stupid shit politicians say. When it comes to stupid shit the Republican Party (GOP) has a much longer track record. The Democrat Party seems to be able to better muzzle its candidates. That means the Democrats enjoy a better public image whereas the GOP get to explain away shit like this:

Patterson also proposed a fix to Detroit’s financial problems: Turn the city into a reservation for Native Americans.

“I made a prediction a long time ago, and it’s come to pass. I said, ‘What we’re gonna do is turn Detroit into an Indian reservation, where we herd all the Indians into the city, build a fence around it, and then throw in the blankets and the corn.’”

Obviously the GOP went into damage control mode and tried to claim that the person who interviewed Patterson had an agenda. Agenda or not, saying something a idiotic as turning Detroit into an Indian reservation, building a wall around it, and tossing in blankets and corn isn’t going to turn out well. There’s no reason to say such a thing because any potential benefit you derive from it will certainly pale in comparison to the amount of ammunition you hand your political opponents.

If you’re a politician then you should know enough to keep your statements unoffensive. Failing to do so only leads to your opponents using it to make you look like an ass. The GOP would do well to hire some public relations coaches for its candidates so it can avoid having to explain away stupid statements like the one Patterson made.

Land Speed Record for Zero to Godwin

I may have found the record time for zero to Godwin in a print publication. According to Tom Perkins of Kleiner Perkins the war against the “one percent” is very similar to the Holocaust:

Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

I can kind of see his point so long as you ignore the parts of the Jewish prosecution where the Jews were forced to live in ghettos, loaded onto cattle cars, forced to perform hard labor while they’re starved, and gassed by the millions.

I do understand what Perkins is trying to say but he really sucks at saying it. His implication is that we’re at the beginning of the persecution of the “one percent” and people are failing to see it just as people failed to see the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. But the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany holds significant emotional pain and comparing events to it can’t be done lightly. Perkins analogy falls apart as soon as you consider the “one percent” have the political system in their pocket whereas the Jews of Nazi Germany didn’t. That difference isn’t insignificant.

The Propaganda Machine is Getting Slow

Edward Snowden has been disseminating information about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance apparatus since June 5th of last year. In all of that time the state’s propaganda machine has been making feeble attempts to combat these leaks. These attempts have ranged from trying to label Snowden a traitor to claiming the state’s surveillance apparatus is necessary to keep American’s safe. Over seven months after Snowden began his heroic efforts the state’s propaganda machine is finally putting some real effort into attempting to discredit him:

Washington – Edward Snow­den, who leaked classified National Security Agency documents, might have been working for Russian spy services before he left his job as an NSA contractor last year, the heads of the House and Senate intelligence committees said Sunday.

“I don’t think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling” of Russia’s state security service, said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House panel.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, was asked whether she agreed with Rogers that Snowden may have had help from the Russians. “He may well have. We don’t know at this stage,” she said.

Neither Rogers nor Feinstein offered evidence that Snowden had been working with Moscow. Both lawmakers said their committees would continue to pursue the suspicions.

It’s a little late to start playing this game. Attempts to discredit somebody need to occur very soon after he or she beings whatever deed warrants discrediting. After a short time frame any attempts to discredit the person appear shady. Such delays make it appear as though you had to invest time into fabricating stories and evidence instead of relying on readily available facts.

The damage Snowden has done to the NSA’s credibility is done. There is nothing the state can do to repair its reputation. Any attempts, other than completely dismantling the NSA, reek of desperation and inability to take responsibility. I’m sure we will be presented with evidence that Snowden was secretly working for the Russians soon but we know that any such evidence will be a pathetic fabrication meant to discredit a great man.

What Could Go Wrong

Let’s play the game of creating a hypothetical situation. Assume that two countries in close proximity to one another are having a strong disagreement. One of these countries is the source for most of your goods and the other is a country that hosts one of your foreign military bases. What would be the best course of action for your country? Would you try to stay out of it and let the two countries duke it out or would you send your warships into the fray? If you answers the latter you may be ready for a career in the United States war department:

China has confirmed that one of its warships — reportedly the newly deployed aircraft carrier Liaoning — had an “encounter” with a U.S. guided missile cruiser in the South China Sea earlier this month.

The incident, in which American officials say the USS Cowpens was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision, was first revealed by Washington last week. China’s state media has said it was Liaoning involved in the incident, but Beijing’s Defense Ministry on Wednesday would only say that the U.S. vessel had been “tailing and harassing” one of its warships while it was engaged in drills. It did not say which of its warships was involved.

What could possible go wrong with involving ourselves in this dispute between China and Japan? Especially when you consider there is really not reason for the United States to be in that region other than to expand its empire. The thing that worries me is incidents of harassment turning into incidents of combat. Warring with China is a recipe for failure considering the economy power it wields.

Reducing Gun Violence and Enacting Gun Control Laws Aren’t Synonymous

Yesterday I opened a copy of the Star Tribune sitting in the lunch room at work and found, unsurprisingly, a letter to the editor arguing for gun control. While letters arguing in favor of gun control are a dime a dozen in the Star Tribune I decided to post this one here because it demonstrates a common logical error in the gun control movement:

I was moved by the article written by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (“Fighting gun violence day by day, step by step,” Jan. 9). She describes the incredible difficulty she has had to face after a coward with a gun shot her in the head. But she has survived, is recovering well and is committed to ending gun violence along with her husband, Mark Kelly.

I support her efforts and, along with thousands of others in our state and millions across this country, realize the necessity of making our communities safe from gun violence. People victimized by guns have rights, too.

Truthfully, it has never been about the loss of Second Amendment rights nor about government confiscation, despite what the public has been told by the gun industry. On the contrary, common-sense laws that require universal background checks, prevent illegal gun traffic and straw purchases, and allow the collection of data from gun sales and crime have been proven to save lives while still maintaining the right to own guns.

Let’s work together to get this done. Our cause is just and growing, and we will not be silenced.

JAY THACKER, Shoreview

Mr. Thacker is arguing for a need to reduce gun violence and to enact gun control laws. His argument implies that the two are synonymous, which they aren’t. We live in a period that has seen a dramatic increase in the number of firearm sales and an overall reduction in violent crime. Increases in firearm sales have been due to multiple criteria including a governmental push for stricter gun control laws and a rapid increase in the number of carry permit holders. We’re not simply experiencing an increase in the number of firearm sales but also in the number of firearms being carried by individuals.

Gun control laws have the sole purpose of reducing the number of firearms in circulation. The belief of gun control proponents is that decreasing the number of firearms in circulation will reduce the rate of gun violence. That belief has been proven false by the above mentioned points. Therefore we must look at other reasons for the overall reduction in the rate of gun violence that we are enjoying today. I’m not foolish enough to believe that there is a single reason for the reduced rate of gun violence but I do believe that an armed society is a polite society plays a sizable part.

Increasing the number of firearms being carried on the street also increases the potential consequences for performing a violent crime. Assaulting, raping, or murdering somebody becomes more dangerous when the more members of the potential victim pool are able to effectively defend themselves. This potentiality is mutually exclusive to the potentiality that reducing the number of firearms in circulation also reduces violent crime rates. Since we are experiencing a period of higher gun sales and lower gun violence we must conclude that the beliefs of gun control advocates are false. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the beliefs of gun rights advocates are factual but those beliefs haven’t been proven false yet and a lot of evidence supports such beliefs.

If one is serious about wanting to reduce gun violence they should abandon their advocacy of stricter gun control laws. It’s demonstrable that gun control laws aren’t having an effect on gun violence rates. This means that gun violence rates must be effected by other factors. These factors must be discovered and understood before an effective method of reducing gun violence rates can be pursued. Therefore I urge those wanting to reduce gun violence to invest their time and resources into uncovering factors that effect gun violence rates. Once we have a better understanding of the causes of violence in a society we can work to address those issues.

Even Your Automobile is Snitching on You

I enjoy the fact that we’re seeing some innovation in the long stagnant automobile market. But said innovation comes at a price. Every new feature that is capable of collecting data about your driving habits is a potential set of loose lips that can get you into trouble. The Vice President of Marketing and Sales at Ford let the cat out of the bag when he publicly announced that his company knows when you’re doing something illegal with your automobile:

Farley was trying to describe how much data Ford has on its customers, and illustrate the fact that the company uses very little of it in order to avoid raising privacy concerns: “We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you’re doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you’re doing. By the way, we don’t supply that data to anyone,” he told attendees.

His claim that that data isn’t given to anybody is a lie. If somebody holds data the government can issue a subpoena to take it or use the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance apparatus to secretly take it. Furthermore, if Ford ever declares bankruptcy the data that it has collected on its customers will be sold at its asset auction.

The obvious solutions to this problem are to either forgo a new automobile or disable any new vehicle’s tracking and reporting capabilities. If the data is being collected it can be acquired by unauthorized parties. This fact is especially worrisome as the state continues its slow death spiral and beings desperately grasping at any opportunity to expropriate wealth from the people.

Expected Behavior from a Politician

What happens when you give firearm to a person who is used to having immunity from the consequences that arise form their actions? They act negligently with it:

FRANKFORT, Ky. — A Kentucky lawmaker said Wednesday that she accidentally fired a gun in her Capitol Annex office on the first day of the legislative session this week, prompting a police investigation. No one was hurt.

Democratic Rep. Leslie Combs of Pikeville issued a statement saying the shot was fired unintentionally Tuesday and that state police assigned to the Capitol found no evidence to indicate any portion of the discharged round left her office.

Combs did not offer details, but a House colleague who said he was in her office at the time described it as an accident.

“She was emptying the weapon and she thought that it was empty and pointed it away and down and pulled the trigger and it went off,” said Rep. Jeff Greer, D-Brandenburg. “Thankfully, no one was hurt. I know she feels terrible about it. … It’s just an unfortunate event.”

She is in a position where she issues orders that negatively impact the lives of everybody living in Kentucky. The fact that she was negligent in her handling of a firearm isn’t surprising but it is probably bar less dangerous that her actions as a oligarch.

Still, the lesson we should take away from this event is that you really need to double, triple, and even quadruple check that your firearm is unloaded when you want to work with it in an unloaded manner. Whenever I disassemble my Glocks I always take a deliberate moment to ensure both the magazine is removed and the chamber is cleared. There’s now point in rushing that check and failing to be thorough can lead to a bad day.

When You Don’t Have a Laser Pointer

What can you use in lieu of a laser pointer? If you’re an idiot and government official (but I repeat myself) you just pull out your handgun and use its laser site as a pointing device:

Jerome M. Hauer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s director of homeland security, took out his handgun and used the laser sighting device attached to the barrel as a pointer in a presentation to a foreign delegation, according to public officials. It happened Oct. 24 in Albany at the highly secure state emergency operations center below State Police headquarters.

You would think a director of homeland security, a person supposedly tasked with keeping people safe, would have some rudimentary understanding of the four rules of firearm safety.

Double Standard of Laws Barring “Mentally Ill” from Possessing Firearms

One of the big gun control drums being beaten today, often by both gun control and gun rights advocates, is barring people who have suffered a mental illness from ever possessing firearms. But we know that the state is hypocritical so any law prohibiting those who have suffered a mental illness from possessing a firearm will be a double standard that benefits the state. In fact Pennsylvania just demonstrated that fact:

Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation.

When on duty, he can carry a gun.

Yet while off duty, he is barred by law from possessing any firearms, because seven years ago he suffered from deep depression, repeatedly tried to kill himself by taking drugs and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

Keyes’ latest attempt to be allowed to have a gun all the time was rejected this week by the state Superior Court.

It’s important to point out that the officer suffered from deep depression. Since depression is something you can overcome, and his freedom from a mental institute indicates he has overcome it, there is no reason he should still be prohibited from owning firearms. But the double standard here is what is most interesting.

Based on this situation I am lead to believe that the state believes that anybody who wears one of its issued costumes is instantly cured from any mental ailment… until they remove that costume. Obviously that’s a ludicrous belief so I’m lead to believe something more logical. In all likelihood the state has no issue with the mentally ill possessing firearms so long as they’re using those firearms to hurt people who disobey its decrees. In fact anybody willing to kick in a random door and shoot a dog because the occupants were accused of possessing a plant is probably suffering from some form of mental illness already.

When you demand that the state prohibit the mentally ill from possessing firearms remember that it will only prohibit the mentally ill outside of its employ from possessing firearms. The state exists on hypocrisy. Its only law is that rules are for thee, not for me. It is the reason politics has never solved a social issues in the history of humanity and never will. Whenever it issues a decree to fix a social issue it always exempts itself from that decree.