Friday, December 30, 2011

NDAA, the politicians Christmas present to you - a police state

There has been a lot already out there on the abortion of a bill, this years National Defense Authorization Act. Jennifer Abel blogs about it here.

With the stoke of a pen, the politicians have taken a diarrhea shit all over the constitution. The major rot in this bill is contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism, Section 1021 specifically the clause:
(a) "In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."
Why is this so odious? To understand, the next section explains just who a "covered person" is.
  1. A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

  2. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
If you read this there is NO EXEMPTION for U.S. citizens, INCLUDING those on U.S. soil. The really ugly part of this bill is contained in the next section.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
  1. Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

  2. Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

  3. Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

  4. Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
Note, while section 1022 exempts U.S. citizens from military trials, and clause 4 above is for non citizens, the most odious, clause 1 CAN BE APPLIED TO U.S. CITIZENS! Read it again: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities".

So what this all boils down to is this gives the power to the government to indefinitely detain with no trial U.S. citizens accused of being a part of, or even "substantially supporting", "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces". A modification to exempt U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was rejected by congress.

The forefathers in writing the constitution were VERY clear that citizens accused of crimes be granted a trial.
Here is the 5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So the relevant section here is that citizens not in the armed forces are specifically not to be held by the government without a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

This alone should be enough to make this bill unconstitutional, but there is more.
Here is the 6th amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I'm not a lawyer, but the text here is crystal clear, the government is required to give the accused a "speedy and public" trial, NOT hold them indefinitely.

Here is the 8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
While "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was intended for sentencing at trials end, I would state that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens with no trial could be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment".

As I read about this monstrosity that the politicians shit forth I asked myself "who asked for this"? A lot of unpalatable anti freedom bills can be traced back to corporate interests. SOPA is a great example of this, it has a long list of corporate sponsorship. I dislike SOPA intensely, but I understand it's origins; corporations, probably headed by RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA groups poured money into congress to get a bill giving them and the government control over the internet when it comes to copyright issues.

But who is supporting an indefinite detention for U.S. citizens provision of the NDAA? You might think that government agencies may have been pushing for this, but that seems not to be the case, as the detention provision is opposed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco.

So who supports this? So far all I've been able to dig up are a small group of companies involved in defense contracts. Note the article does NOT say if any of these companies pushed for or support section 1021 of the NDAA, it is still NOT CLEAR to me where this came from. I'm going to field a guess on this, and I stand by it. I'm guessing that this did NOT emanate from corporations, but rather from a naked lust for power coming from the politicians. The constitution was specifically written to limit the power of government and many politicians don't like this at all. If section 1021 of this bill goes unchallenged, or worse, is upheld by the supreme court, the politicians will have gutted the constitution and replaced it with a police state.

Here is a list of the scum in the Senate who voted for this.
Here are the House members who voted for this.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Urban Survivalism

Is survivalism for you? I'd say just about 100% of liberals, as well as ANYONE living in the city would probably say no to that question. The word always brings to mind visions of a Mad Max post apocalyptic world with no law and insane people murdering everything they see.

Hardcore survivalists prepare for this by stockpiling years of food, guns, ammo and other supplies. They may live in a remote area, or have a hideaway shelter in such an area they think they can get to if they feel things are about to go bad.

This really isn't for most people, liberals HAAATE guns so they are not going to be able to protect anything they've stockpiled if things went sour, which they obviously feel is not likely, and probably isn't. For others it's just not practical; how are you going to get to work from your remote location? If you have a separate hideaway place it will be tough to get there post disaster. Nuke event, well you get about 8 minutes warning for that, so forget it, you ain't makin' it to the hideaway shelter. Even if you DO make it to that shelter if others have found it they aren't leaving and it's unlikely they will let you in, even if you show them the paperwork proving you are the owner.

So, for the above reasons, hardcore survivalism just does not suit Joe Sixpack, even conservative Joe Sixpack who may not be adverse to the concept. But people should think about survivalism. Not a cataclysm such as post nuke or complete societal collapse, which as I already mentioned most people CAN'T prepare for and is unlikely anyway. But they should prepare for another enemy.

Mother Nature. She IS a bitch. For weather disasters, even in the city you CAN practice some basic "urban survivalism". What got me thinking about this was a recent, freak snowstorm in October. It wasn't that bad, and the snow melted quickly but it DID take out the power in part of the Northeast U.S. Power companies in some areas were SLOW to restore power, some people didn't get it back for over a week. If you don't have gas this means no hot food for that time period. It means after a day or so, when what you had in the fridge is eaten or spoiled what you can eat is limited to what is in a can. Do you have enough canned food for a week? You are already cold, maybe even freezing, does frosty cold canned food sound yummy to you? This is where, for want of a better word, what I call "urban survivalism" comes in.

The goal here is not to be prepared for years of post apocalyptic misery, but to be prepared to survive for two weeks. So ya want hot food with no 'lectricity, waddaya do? The answer to that is pretty simple. Get a camping stove. It's a VERY cheap investment, I've seen them go from $10.00 to $40 bucks. I'm sure you can pay more, but part of my urban survival philosophy is NOT breaking your bank account. The stove not only allows you to heat up canned food, but to prepare freeze dried food like ramen, knorr etc, stuff that does NOT take up a lot of space, is cheap, and lasts forever. Hot coco powder isn't a bad thing to have either.

UPDATED info - 10/19/2022
After doing more research at a later date I found out that the gas camping stoves are a bad idea, as they can cause co2, and/or fume issues. I didn't find any other posts about "flareups" from alcohol stoves, so those are OK. Conclusion, stick with alcohol or Sterno for indoor emergency stoves.

DEPRECIATED
There may be more(I'm NOT an expert on this, do your OWN research!!!) but from my research there seem to be three basic types. Alcohol, propane/butane and fuel cans(sterno). From what I read I DO NOT recommend the alcohol, as they do NOT work when it gets too cold, and a reviewer wrote about a "flareup" if you vary the height of your cooking utensil above it. The goal here is hot food, NOT burning your place down!!

I'm not sure which of the remaining two, propane/butane or fuel cans is better, like I said before I'm NOT an expert. The advantage of the gas units is they burn hotter, reviews state most seem to take only a few minutes to boil water. If you get one of these be sure to get the RIGHT fuel bottle, most of them seem to use a squat gas cannister that does NOT have the same threads as the small propane bottles you see sold everywhere.


I bought this stove which uses fuel cans(sterno). I opted for this because I like the absolute simplicity. No mechanism to fiddle with, possibly break, throw a match into the fuel can and you are ready to go. A reviewer wrote that the design has "been around since the 30's" so it has certainly withstood the test of time. It came well reviewed overall. I'm not saying it's better than the butane/propane stoves, if you like those buy one. It is certainly better than NO stove when the power goes out and you don't have gas. (note, sometimes gas lines DO break, so even if you have gas the $20 - $50 bucks a camping stove will cost won't break you).

Whatever stove you buy, make sure you have enough fuel for it to cook 2 meals a day for two weeks. Don't assume you can "buy more" as panic buyers during weather disasters have been known to clean stores out. The same goes for food, make sure you have two weeks worth. It doesn't have to be expensive, cheap ramen and knorr freeze dried stuff will keep you going, throw in some cans of chili, stew, and whatever else appeals to you to break it up.

Water, water WATER, without it you will shrivel up and die, not to mention NOT being able to use any of that freeze dried food I advised you to buy. Hopefully it won't happen, but sometimes during a weather event water pipes burst. Someone in a small apartment doesn't have the space to keep 5 gallons of water on hand regularly, but if you KNOW a storm is coming then fill up some gallon jugs. I don't know if it's practical to keep two weeks worth, this may be an item you will wind up having to scrounge for if the pipes don't get fixed soon enough, hopefully not. In any event, store up as much as you can when you hear the shit is about to go down.

Blankies!!!! Bad shit tends to happen in winter, where in much of the country it's FREEZING COLD. What you have with the heat on probably will NOT be enough with no heat. Can't go wrong with some extra wool blankets and or comforters, a sleeping bag rated for extreme cold may even be a better idea if you have the space for it. Have to admit I'm not well prepared in this area. Don't be me.

No power = no light, so of course be sure to have a decent supply of stuff people DO think of, batteries, slow burning candles, matches, etc..

Well, can't think of anything else, if I missed anything feel free to add it in a comment.

Friday, November 11, 2011

mic check - shut the FUCK up you assholes

There is a new form of protest called a "mic check". How it works is a crowd of people disrupt a speech by yelling "mic check" and then delivering a speech of their own, drowning out the original speaker. You can see this in action here and here.

This is a cheap and dirty way for a group to get the media to report on their point, as of course they only do this when cameras are rolling. I love protest. I'm a huge fan of the 60's and the anti Vietnam and pro civil rights demonstrations that went on back then.

So why then, as a fan of protest and dissent, do I find this form so repellent? Because if you observe what is going on, if you THINK about it, what these protesters are REALLY doing is engaging in censorship. They are denying a persons 1st amendment right of free speech in order to make their own. They no doubt feel cute and slick, as not only are they getting their own speech out to the media, they are denying the speech of someone they don't like.

I find this behavior despicable and repulsive. Censorship is the OPPOSITE of freedom no matter what party puts it to use. In a free society ALL parties MUST be allowed to speak. If the speaker is unpopular no one is required to listen to them, although it is a good idea to listen to people you disagree with, NOT shout them down, as it gives you a more solid foundation to argue against them.

The internet is the greatest medium of free speech ever. That is what needs to be used to propagate dissenting views. Anyone can stand up and be an asshole disrupting a speech, it's NOT impressive and garners little sympathy for a cause. No matter what the cause is, the 1st amendment doesn't just apply to you, it applies to everyone.

Voltaire: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sunday, October 23, 2011

To the Occupy movement - wake up and smell the constitution

I like the concept of the Occupy movement. It started in NYC as Occupy Wall St., the purpose to send a message to the rich and politicians that enough is enough. No more bailouts for "too big to fail" banks and insurance companies with tax money, end corporate welfare, bring back Glass-Steagall, maybe even try to get the ball rolling on a REAL recovery, not a "jobless" recovery where people are still not working while the rich get fatter and fatter.

I think both the original Occupy Wall street movement in NYC and Occupy Boston have done a good job illustrating this. Despite a persistent lack of coverage from the mainstream media the independent media got the word out, thanks to the www and the blogosphere. Instead of just blowing over, which the mainstream media and their corporate masters had hoped, the movement gained popularity and grew. Now many cities have occupy movements within them.

But, something happened on the way to the forum. Some, not all, but some of the Occupy movement groups have gotten downright nasty to the very people who are spreading their message across the country and world.
Some of the Occupy movement groups that have shown hostility to the media(independent and/or mainstream) are:
Occupy DC x 2
Occupy Miami
Occupy Oakland - a mention of yet ANOTHER Occupy Miami incident also here. Annnnd again.
Occupy Portland
Occupy San Diego
Occupy Eureka
Occupy LA Scroll down to bottom.

Robert Lyles in the news report about Occupy Oakland did a great job pointing out the hypocrisy of the assholes from Occupy Oakland, one of whom even allowed his dog to assault a reporter.
Sara Mizner, who asked reporters point cameras toward city hall and not toward the tents was asked this: "Are you picking and choosing which constitutional rights to uphold?"
This was her answer:"Right now in this moment it was the safest decision that we felt that we could make."
I'd really like to know how reporters are threatening their safety. Not that it matters, as the constitution doesn't suddenly lose effect because the Occupy Oakland douche bags feel "unsafe".
Update - more BS from the pretentious fucks at Occupy Oakland.
Update2 - Ahahahahahahaha! Karma at work here, suck it down BITCHES!

None of these people, and justifiable so, like the cops trying to interfere with their constitutional rights. So why do they turn into instant assholes as soon as they see a camera? They are in a public place, where they have NO expectation of privacy and the constitution is VERY clear about the freedom of the press.

Seriously, if you want to conduct secret meetings, rent a hall someplace. Then you can control who gets in and what kind of behavior is allowed. Otherwise STFU and stop treading on other peoples constitutional rights while insisting everyone respects yours.

Note: Since I wrote this article in October the number of unpleasant and sometimes violent incidences at some of the Occupy locations, ESPECIALLY Occupy Oakland have been increasing. Carlos Miller, owner of the blog Photography is Not a Crime has done an excellent job of documenting this, most of my links are from him. While most of the people in the Occupy movement ARE peaceful, a MAJOR beef I have is the FAILURE of the majority of peaceful people there to push the assholes out of the movement. This CAN be done Sara Robinson explains how
The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.

This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual “we” statements that reflect the observations of the group. “We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave.”

When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic assholes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with “I” messages. “I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave.” Every statement needs to end with that demand — “We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back.” No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.
Replace "smoking weed" with "Throwing paint at cops, smashing windows, and threatening media people" and you get the idea of who really needs to be pushed out of the occupy movement.

I don't buy the "31%" willing to commit violence figure, but this rap sheet shows that the movement has a LOT of work to do cleaning the shitheads out of it.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The medical profession and tech.

One thing I have noticed is that while the medical profession is quick to adopt the latest medical gadget they tend to remain in the stone age when it comes to computers and digital devices. Just think about the now common digital camera. It cost NOTHING to take a picture with one yet doctors are NOT using them to take pictures of patients injuries.

You would think in some circumstances this would be an invaluable tool, as the picture could be added to the patients medical record. With a ruler next to it in the picture it would also be easy to see if the injury has gotten bigger or not. Changes, like whether the injury has gotten more red, purple, whatever could also be observed over time in a succession of pictures.

I can understand in the days of film cameras this not being done as development is both time consuming and costly but both of those factors are eliminated with digicams.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Government debt

Just go here. I don't need to add anything.
Link is now dead but this pic sums it up...

Sunday, October 2, 2011

You don't own anything

Imagine going to a school with two bullies. Two BIG, merciless bullies. They have no scruples. If they like your lunch, they take it. If they like your jewelry, they take it. If they want the shirt off your back, they will yank it off you. You can try going to school authorities, but the bullies retaliate by delivering punishing beatings and taking even more of your stuff while the glacially slow school justice system drags on. Talking to the principle doesn't work, nor does suspension. They merely catch you on the way home and beat you up then. Sound like a shitty situation to be in? Well guess what, you ARE in it.

The two bullies are big corporations and the government. And if you have what they want they are going to take it away from you. Of the two, the bigger, badder bully is the government. It already takes your lunch money every paycheck in the form of taxes.

Some people love taxes. But no one on the receiving end loves asset forfeiture. This is cute government legal tactic where the property is declared as being acquired by illegal means(usually drug sales) and the government takes it. The government is NOT required to prosecute the property owner, and the owner is put in the position where he/she has to take the government to court to get his property back.
Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime.
Needless to say, asset forfeiture has become a VERY popular tool of government bully.

A tool used by both government and corporate bullies to separate you from your property is eminent domain. This used to be only for use by government, and limited to what was deemed "the greater public good", which usually meant government could only take your property for public works projects such as hydroelectric power dams and roads. Corporate bully didn't like being left out of this, LOUDLY shouted "ME TOO!!" and thanks to the Kelo decision by the supreme court he got his wish! So now Walmart or any other big corporation can use eminent domain to take your house. All they have to do is prove they can generate more tax revenue than you do, which of course, they can.

"I've got a web site! And golly gee, I own a domain with my VERY own name"!

No you don't. Just like a rug, that too can get yanked out from under you by either government or corporate bully. In this case, even when government bully takes it, it's at the instigation of corporate bully.

It works like this. Corporate bully goes to government bully, hands wringing, head hung low, tears beginning to well up in his sad, wide round eyes. "Government bully, I need your help, those bad old pirates are giving away my copyrighted material on their web site!" Now copyright infringement is a CIVIL matter, so in this case government bully should have told corporate bully to man up and deal with it himself, but government bully LOVES corporate bully, so instead had ICE seize over 80 internet domains.

Corporate bully grows a pair when he wants your web domain for himself. "How does this happen"; you ask? Well lets say Joe Sixpack gets his very own web site, and buys the domain name joesixpack.com. It's his family web site and he's had it for 15 years. Then along comes corporate bully, in the form of a multimillion dollar beer company named, not surprisingly, Joe Sixpack™. They want a web site but OOOOOPS!, it's taken already. They make Joe Sixpack the person a crappy offer, which he refuses.

"Oh ho", says corporate bully Joe Sixpack™, and accuses Joe Sixpack of cybersquatting, using that as an excuse to drag Joe Sixpack into court and have the judge force him to hand the domain over to Joe Sixpack™. Even with no real legal basis corporate bully has a LOT of money and can jerk Joe Sixpack through the court system, costing him a LOT of money. Money, most likely, he doesn't have. An example of this kind of bad behavior by corporate bully can be found here. Although in this case apparently Mr. Uzi Nissan had enough money to deal with the court system, so for once corporate bully Nissan™ had to eat shit. Most people however DO NOT have the money it takes to battle it out all the way to the supreme court and will wind up losing their domain name, which they paid for in good faith.

So there you have it, between government bully and corporate bully you don't own a thing, not even the shirt on your back. If government bully claims it was purchased with drug money or you owe taxes, he'll take that too.

Update! Just found out in some states you don't even own the RAIN that falls off your roof. So who does? Our old friend, government bully. Next they'll claim the sweat off your back belongs to the government too.

Update - 2023
Surprised it took me so long to add this. One more thing you don't own is your house. You rent that from government bully. Don't believe me? Government bully calls his rent "property tax" and if you don't pay the rent, you lose your home. When you have to pay someone money in order to live somewhere or you are forced to leave, that is not ownership. You are renting that property.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Monkey House, the nets ugliest p2p news site, is back!




Monkey House, my p2p news blog is back up. It's new url is: http://monkey.byethost17.com
I was only able to save a few of the old posts, but at least it is up and running again.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Religious Fanaticism - SUCKS

A relative posted this on Facebook. I have a pretty thick skin but I found it offensive.
A college professor stood up on his chair and said "If GOD really exists then GOD knock me off this chair." Nothing happened. The class silently watched as an Army Veteran stood up and punched him in the face knocking him out and off the chair, then sat back down. As the Professor came to he looked at his student and said "WHY DID YOU DO THAT?" He said "GOD was busy protecting my buddies still fighting for your right to say and do stupid shit like that, so HE SENT ME. Amen.
I was the only one who objected, everyone else thought it was wonderful. Here are my two responses to this crud below.
Guess it's just me, but I REALLY don't trust people who hear voices in their heads, claiming to be god telling them what to do

I could rewrite that as the professor being a christian talking about Jesus and guy who punched him being a Muslim, who felt that HIS god was being insulted/denied. Exactly the same mentality, but I bet no one would be cheering for Abdul.
I so despise religious fanaticism, no matter WHAT flavor it comes in. The funny thing is, the professor in the story's argument isn't really all that good. I can beat it down and I'm an agnostic-atheist.
Essentially the professor is trying to force god to prove his existence by saying nah nah, look at me, prove you are out there by knocking me off this chair. Well if you read the bible or even just watched Charlton Heston as Moses you will know that god as portrayed in the bible doesn't operate like that. While all knowing of everything, god operates on HIS time and does what HE wants.
According to the bible the Jews were tortured by the thousands for YEARS before god decided to send out Moses to rescue them in his name. Sodom and Gomorrah's citizens sinned for years before god got sick of it and sent his angels to destroy the cities. So one professor standing up in a chair NOT being knocked out of it by god is in no way contradictory to the bibles teachings.

I guess you can't make an argument like that if your mind is all fogged up and confused with fanatic religious rage, at that point all you can do is face fist someone for expressing a viewpoint that conflicts with your theology.
Mr. Army douche has it wrong. Nazis, KGB thugs, Islamic fanatics and other people from dystopian police states smash people to the ground for disagreeing with their philosophy. By punching the professor THAT's what he is defending

Thursday, September 15, 2011

The Government's undeclared war

I've been thinking about 20th century history, from the 50's till now, and have come to a conclusion. The U.S. government has been engaged in a war. The war it has been engaged in is against its own people. The government never admits this, but it is so.

It started with the "war on communism", in the 50's. Sure you had the cold war conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, but there was also a conflict going on at home. By flag waving and fear mongering the government was able to frighten people about "communist" infiltrators, who were trying to destroy the American way. Who were these people? Anyone the government said they were. Belong to a group the government didn't like. Guess what, you were a communist! Push forward a viewpoint the government didn't like? COMMIE! Hollywood got hit particularly hard, with actors and directors careers ruined over the governments accusing them of communism.

People started getting wise to this bullshit in the 60's, you could see it in the activism and protests about Vietnam and other government stupidity. The people weren't buying the old commie bs anymore, so the government had to come up with a new excuse in order to continue to conduct it's war against it's own people. Enter the war on drugs!!! Ushered in by that scion of virtue, Richard Millhouse Nixon the war on drugs has been longtime and still ongoing justification for the government to wage war against its citizens.

Part of any war is the acquisition of territory and with the RICO laws the government has seized millions, if not billions of dollars worth of peoples property under the auspice it was bought with "drug money". In wartime the loser doesn't get a trial first, and neither do RICO victims. If an asset forfeiture victim wishes to get their stuff back, they have to take the GOVERNMENT to court. It is the complete opposite of the way U.S. justice is supposed to be, where the government needs to collect evidence them prove you guilty under a presumption of innocence. Instead, you are PRESUMED guilty and have to attempt to prove innocence in order to have your seized property returned. Mimsey were the Borogroves!!!

No knock raids, "stop and search"(a PC new name for an old cop tactic formerly known as "rousting the niggers"), a massive escalation in the size and armament of SWAT teams, the war on drugs has definitely allowed the government to escalate the war on its own people to the next level.

When you are conducting a war, sometimes attacking from just one front isn't enough. You want to catch the enemy in a pincher movement, flank him, wrap him up, finish him.

Enter post 9-11 and the war on terrorism. I'm not saying retaliation wasn't necessary, but the government has peddled fear and used it to convince people it's OK for it to make an end run against the constitution. The Patriot act, TSA gate rape, treating photographers like terrorists.

All wars end; its been LONG overdue for the government to end its war against it's own people. When John Lennon sang give peace a chance he was talking about the governments idiotic war in Vietnam. It was good advice then, its still good advice now.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Taxes, who should pay?

  Why when it comes to tax increases is it ALWAYS the working guy who has to bend over and take it? I can recall years ago BEGGING my employer, who had a wage freeze, to just give me enough of a raise to compensate for the state tax increase so that I could at LEAST be making the same money and not be handed a pay cut. The answer of course, was no.
  Democrats LOVE to talk about taxing the rich, but there is a problem with this. Corporations and rich people lobby politicians. They make large scale political contributions. Joe six pack doesn't have have the money to lobby the politicians and his contribution, if any, is a joke in comparison to what the rich give. So when all the bloviating is done, guess who winds up with the tax increase?
  There is a HUGE vein of untapped tax revenue out there. It is NOT the rich, as even if they don't pay enough, they are at least paying something. I'm talking about so called "non profits". You know, churches, universities, hospitals, and charities all squatting on acres of land and not paying a dime in property or income tax.
  Lets start with the churches. Does the Catholic church seem poor to you? The Vatican is literally dripping with gold, yet pays no taxes in the U.S. There may be some small churches not making any profit, but the large ones rolling in money need to start paying taxes.
  Now we come to the Universities. Rah rah go team go! Love that college football! If a school can afford a multi-million dollar football team AND raises tuition well above the inflation rate year after year they need to stop crying non profit poormouth and pay taxes.
  Feeling sick? Uninsured? So sad, if you need any surgery you'll be paying that hospital bill for the rest of your life. I'm not quite as down on the hospitals as I am on the churches and universities, but I do think there are some hospitals with administrative bloat and overpaid management. Hospitals like this need to be given the option of shaping up or paying the tax man.
  Last but so very not least are the so called "charities". So sorry chums, but any charity paying out a six figure salary to its CEO should not only lose non profit status and have to pay taxes, it should have to pay them RETROACTIVELY.
  These moochers have been getting a free ride for far too long; it's time for them to shoulder the same tax burden everyone else has to.

Monday, September 5, 2011

Why the right to bear arms is important

  If you live in a decent neighborhood, odds are you will never need a gun for self defense. Limousine liberals whose most dangerous experiences were a few fist fights in prep school don't have a clue what it's like if you DON'T live in a nice neighborhood. They, and unfortunately some misguided community leaders as well, seem to think strict gun control is some kind of magic that will make a bad neighborhood less dangerous.
  I never understood that. Are the hoods still there? The drug dealers and the pimps still there? Gangs still there? Poverty still there? With all other conditions the same, the only thing gun control does is make life easier for the hoods, many who can still get guns from the same people they get illegal drugs from.
Liberals argue: "need help, just call the police, it's their job".
Is it? Really? Actually, it isn't. Putting aside the axiom "when seconds count, police are only minutes away",it has been ruled that police have no duty to protect you.
  The state of Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet it is codified in Mass state law that police are NOT obligated to protect you. A Massachusetts statute spells out the rule there: the government has no legal duty “to provide adequate police protection, prevent the commission of crimes, investigate, detect or solve crimes, identify or apprehend criminals or suspects, arrest or detain suspects, or enforce any law.” Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 258 § 10(h).
  More recently, the supreme court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales has upheld the precedent that authorities are under no obligation to protect you, even in the case of a restraining order.
So when you call the police if they show up it is because they chose to, not because they had to. By restricting gun ownership via tough gun laws, the state is replacing the right to self defense with a police force which has no obligation to protect you. Sorry to sound like a redneck, but personally I'd trust the functionality of a shotgun over the benevolence of the police.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Massachusetts wiretapping laws, it's time for a change

Video cameras. They are everywhere. Most cell phones now come with one, and most people have cell phones. Even if you don't have a cell phone, or a camera equipped cell phone digital video cameras are small and cheap, and most point and shoot still cameras have an option to record video, with sound. With all these cameras around, is it not natural that people will well... use them? Not surprisingly, since the Rodney King incident on March 2, 1991 more and more people have used video cameras to record police. Cops don't like this and have retaliated by arresting the people filming them under a variety of charges, failure to comply with lawful order(cop illegally demands camera turned over), obstruction of investigation, basically contempt of cop charges with little or no legal grounding. Most states are one party consent, meaning that in public places there is no expectation of privacy for public officials. Hence the bullshit contempt of cop charges because police can't actually charge people for filming them. In most states. Massachusetts is a 2 party consent state. Police have interpreted this to mean anyone filming them with audio requires the officer(s) being filmed consent, which of course is never given. Arrests have been made under this statute, in Greenfield MA Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman, and Simon Glik. The Glick case is particularly noteworthy in that Glik upon beating the case turned around and sued the police. He won in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, part of the decision reading: "The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative."
So what does this mean for Massachusetts citizens wishing to film cops? I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong here, but from what I have read here and there if the cop SEES you filming him it is NOT considered wiretapping. From what I understand to be sure they can't charge you with wiretapping you have to inform the police you are recording them if they don't already see you. It seems like a big victory, but is it? What if a citizen witnesses a pumped up roid rage cop beating the living shit out of someone? So in this situation he's supposed to walk up to the already enraged officer and say "excuse me sir, I'm going to film you"? Oh THATs going to go over well. Over like a lead Zeppelin.
Clearly, what needs to be done is the law itself needs to be changed, so that two party consent is in NO WAY required to record public officials in public places. Ideally, the Mass legislature could get the law changed, but that is not very likely to happen. That insane clown posse is much more interested in passing seat belt laws and pushing through boondoggle multi-billion dollar projects like the big dig. There is another way, although it's a tough row to hoe. Massachusetts has a Initiative Petition process where citizens can get laws passed if they first get enough signatures on the petition and then get a majority of people to vote for it when election time comes around. As stated before, this is NOT easy, it currently requires that "the initiative petition must be signed by a minimum of 68,911 certified voters. No more than one-quarter of the certified signatures may come from any one county (until the results of the 2014 state election are certified by the Governor's Council, this figure is 17,228)."
To accomplish this requires a person or persons with both some legal knowledge to write out the law change so that the cops can't worm around it and enough connections to be able to collect the large amount of signatures needed just to get it on the ballot, THEN publicize it positively to counter the no doubt negative press that law enforcement will put out in opposition. I have neither the legal knowledge nor the influence, but I'm putting out the idea anyway in hope that someone else does.

Edit: According to this precedent, audio recording of police in secret is not legal Right to record has an interesting article on the Glik case.
"Curiously, Lisa Skehill Maki, the author of the brief for the City of Boston, wrote her student note on how the Massachusetts law was wrong."
For those who feel my post was not highbrow enough, her dissertation can be downloaded in pdf format here.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Bye Bye Monkey House (for now)

Just a short post to mourn the death of my other, and I think better blog Monkey House. It was more specialized, dealing with copyright issues and the music industry. The server I was piggy backing on got shut down, and dummy me not being used to how CMS's work, had not backed up the file the posts were on. It was more than just a blog in that it had a forum and chat room as well. Forum posts too are gone. :(

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Fuck You

  I, like many, detested and loathed George Bush. I hated him for his stupidity, his obstinacy, and refusal to admit he was wrong or change direction even in the face of overwhelming evidence. George W. Bush was a man who never let the facts confuse him.
  Then you got in, President Obama, the great black hope who was going to right all the wrongs perpetrated on us by Bush. From all the glowing articles written by a lapdog press, one of whom, Chris Matthews even admitting to getting a "tingle" down his leg when thinking about you, it would appear as if Jesus Christ himself was again walking the earth, bestowing his blessings upon lower mortals. While I was never dancing in the streets over your victory I did have some hopes that you would undo SOME of the damage Bush has done. You have done a little. You undid Bush's moronic ban on stem cell research. But there was so much more to do, and you you haven't done any of it. So without further adieu, Mr. President, fuck you.
  • Fuck You - For not getting us out of Iraq. I believe if Hillery Clinton had been elected instead of you we would have been long gone from there by now.

  • Fuck You - For continuing Bush's bailout with taxpayer money of banks and insurance companies, while not requiring them to have open books so the public could see how they were spending the money. You gave them public money with no demand for public accountability.

  • Fuck You - For giving Americans a so called "national health plan" that is the insurance industries wet dream. With NO public option, it essentially forces individuals to buy their health insurance from private companies or face fines.

  • Fuck You - For filling up Department of Justice positions with RIAA flacs.

  • Fuck You - For extending provisions of the Patriot Act, which many people thought you would at the least sunset, if not get rid of immediately.

  • Fuck You - For giving us the TSA disco ball x-ray, ball grab tittie squeeze porno show.

  • Fuck You - For using ICE to seize internet domain names without even a trial first.

  • Fuck You - For creating the position of IP Czar.
The sad thing is, I can't picture a republican administration doing any better, just about all my criticism here is for Obama not being liberal enough. It's doubtful some neocon successor to Obama would scale back the patriot act or do anything to reign in corporate abuse, or promote internet freedom.