Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Northeast band scene - GAYYYYYYYY!!!

So I got this idea in my head I'd get back to playing in a band. I used to play in bands in the 80's and have been out of the scene for a while.

Since then things have changed, and not for the better. First there seems to be a lot less bands and musicians wanting to form bands out there. It kind of makes sense, video games and other forms of entertainment have gained more interest and less people are taking up instruments.

The thing that REALLY sucks though, is age snottism. Basically most of the bands want all the members to be within about five years of each other. Now I can see wanting to have the same musical style interests, but you have both 20 somethings and 50 somethings who are into Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, The Doors, Floyd, etc. I can't speak for the west coast, midwest or other areas, so I'm not sure if this is nation wide or just a New England thing. What I do know is that it sucks, because it narrows down the already dwindling number of bands exponentially.

This attitude was almost non existent when I played in the 80's. Back then it was about the MUSIC, people sharing a common interest in songs and jamming. A band I was in had members in their 20's with a drummer in his 50's and no one thought anything about it. Could they do the job was the ONLY concern. A few years later I was in a band where the singer was in his late 50's. No one cared.

I mean, just what is it with the age thing? Is it because they'd feel awkward when they all got into a circle to fuck each other in the ass if a member was too old or young? If bands want to SUCK less, they need to focus more on the music and LESS on their image.





Saturday, December 1, 2012

Why I don't like the police

Pro law enforcement people wonder why people don't like the police. These guys are heroes, they say. They are out to protect you. They are the good guys.

Are they? Looking at recent cases it seems like officer safety trumps EVERYTHING. A cop can gun down a chihuahua and it gets dismissed as justifiable. They can shoot a guy in his own home cowering in a corner holding a golf club and that is deemed justifiable. Since WHEN did the attitude become that the job of police officer be so risk averse that cops can shoot anyone or anything given the slightest provocation?

I'll tell you what else I don't like. There are two sets of rules. One for them, and one for you. You keep hearing about "officer safety" in all the bogus cop shooting incidence where the cop is ALWAYS cleared of any wrong doing. Yet if a civilian with a concealed carry permit were in exactly the same situation they would be punished, sometimes harshly.

Take Todd Blair, the guy who was killed holding the golf club. If you went into someones house, no matter WHAT the justification, and shot them while they were cowering in a corner, then tried to claim you did it for your own safety, the judge, jury, and prosecutor would all laugh you right into a prison cell. The FACT that you NEVER EVEN TOLD HIM TO PUT IT DOWN, just like the cop did not do, would further damage your case. That the guy you shot was a crackhead would mean nothing. But put on a UNIFORM and work for the state and it's all "attaboy, good job", no charges filed.

Imagine what would happen if some small to mid sized dog growled at you and you shot it. Think "I was in fear for my safety" would cut you any slack?

There was a recent case where NY cops got into a shootout with a psycho. Some bystanders got accidentally shot by the cops. Most people understood in a bad situation like that it can happen, so no one condemned the cops. But here's the deal. Citizens ARE NOT afforded the same slack. A gun owner is told he is going to be held responsible for EVERY BULLET fired, so in the very same situation a citizen could, and in a liberal state, probably would, be prosecuted. How is this fair? It's somehow OK for a supposedly trained police officer to hit innocent people in a gunfight, but a citizen is supposed to be able to shoot like Annie Oakley under the very same circumstances.

When ever some cop is busted doing something truly heinous, you always hear the old adage "every barrel has a few rotten apples" from either the media or some cop spokesperson. That's just the first part of that saying, the rest of it is "A few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel". And this is EXACTLY the major problem with the police. You are supposed to GET RID of the rotten apples but far too often this does not happen with the police.

You have a "thin blue line" balls to ass cheeks circle jerk culture where they cover up for each other. There are many cops that do their jobs in a professional manor. There are even some that do so well they could be referred to as "great cops". I would argue that no matter how well an officer preforms his duty, he is ultimately a lousy cop if he fails to report bad behavior from the rotten cops. The problem with that is any cop who violates omerta gets ostracized from the force. He could wind up getting a shit detail in the worst neighborhood, and them have no one show up when he calls for backup. The blue wall of silence is bad business, yet it is the culture all cops operate under.

It seems to me that most of the REAL good cops get drummed off the force as a result of this culture. They are literally, too moral to be a police officer.

And therein lies the problem...

Friday, November 16, 2012

Government vs individual charity

I have to say I'm feeling an ENORMOUS amount of disgust with big nanny-state government's attitude toward charitable donations by individuals directly TO individuals. The nanny staters don't like it. They despise it. I give you the example of his eminence King Cunt himself, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. His enema has declared, since around May, that people can't donate food to the homeless. It's not fear of contamination, it's because the city can't asses the salt, fiber and fat content.

This is the EPITOME of liberal, nanny-state, overbearing government arrogance. They would literally rather have the homeless STARVE than eat food that is too salty or fatty. The recent hurricane has not changed anything, supplies low, sorry no non government distributed food 4 U victims and homeless. This ASSHOLE has been re elected three times already and will no doubt be elected again. What the fuck is it with people; do they need to be bent over and dominated THAT MUCH??

But it doesn't stop there. GOOD PEOPLE were starting to organize and give supplies to some of the hurricane victims. FEMA who did SO WELL during hurricane Katrina had demanded that people STOP DONATING ITEMS to Hurricane Sandy victims.
A community in need can "become easily overwhelmed with the amount of generous people who want to help," according to FEMA.
So what FEMA is saying is "there is too much helpin' going on here". Are you FUCKING SERIOUS? Why is there this PERVASIVE fucktard mentality by government that EVERYTHING disaster related has to be coordinated and regulated by one entity? People distributing items to victims on their own are NOT interfering with ANYTHING FEMA is doing!!! They are in fact, SUPPLEMENTING it, by handing out additional items in areas that very well may not have received ANY government help yet.

The NY Times recently had an article going on about how necessary big government is in times of disaster. While big government can certainly get rebuilding on a large scale done, it needs to get the FUCK out of the way of private individuals trying to help who may, in some places, be doing a BETTER job than it is at helping people.

Monday, October 1, 2012

The Poison Pill - how to stifle dissent without the use of logic and a complete absence of facts

So you are in a debate with someone. Maybe they are a little smarter than you. Maybe they are just better prepared. You are losing the debate. It's time to give them the poison pill. The contents of the pill vary, depending on the debate topic and the political/social norm for the time period.

It is the 1950's and someone is arguing against censorship, stronger government control, and for unions and worker rights. They have good arguments, what do you do? Reply: "you're a communist". You can even put it to them in the form of a question, "are you a communist". You have introduced a new paradigm; instead of debating the facts back and forth, now you have forced your opponent into trying to prove he is not a communist. Game over, you've short circuited all his arguments, forced him on the defensive and made him look like a social pariah.

Of course such an accusation would be laughed at now, but the concept of the poison pill is still as effective as ever. Lets update the debate topic. The subject is now affirmative action. The opposition is hitting you hard about how certain aspects of it are unfair and have not worked. You could argue back with counter points but why bother? It's time for the poison pill and it's a beaut. "You're a racist" That's it. One word. By hanging the moniker "racist" on your opponent you have stuffed him/her into a box that they will have to spend the rest of the debate struggling to escape from.

The poison pill is also an excellent tactic for governments/corporations wishing to hide unscrupulous and/or immoral activities. All a corporation or government has to do to dismiss accusations of underhanded activity is to label the accusation as a "conspiracy theory". Anyone engaging in "conspiracy theory" is usually looked upon as a nutter so the poison pill in this case can put a damper on public interest in the story, or at least cast doubt on the accusations legitimacy.

Are you a violent asshole who likes to punch people? Now the poison pill works for you too! Just label them a "nazi" and you go from thug to hero.

I don't have a good answer to the poison pill tactic, I wish I did. I think more public skepticism is in order. Just because someone in a political party or group that you agree with accuses someone else of being a [insert pejorative here] does NOT make it true, and if they are using it to either shut down debate or assault someone then you REALLY need to take the accusation with a grain of salt.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Obama care - bend over and take it

So, the supreme court has given the go ahead to Obamacare, claiming it comes under the governments right to tax. I find this interpretation very strange. When people think of a "tax" it is usually the government directly taking money from you in some form or other for services it provides. This is NOT the case with Obamacare.

Lets get something straight right away, this is NOT A PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN!!! In fact, there is no public option at all, that provision was struck out of the bill, thanks to the insurance industry.

How this works is the government forces people to buy health care from private corporations, refusal to do so gets you fined. Of COURSE welfare people get a pass, as guess what? They ALREADY get free health care, paid for by working people. Most middle class people will be ok, as they already have health insurance. Illegals, ahahahahahaha, good luck finding out where they live to send them the fine!
Correction - I have since found out illegals are exempt!!!
The people who are REALLY going to get a screw job off of this are the low income working class U.S. citizen. It's almost impossible for limo libs like Obama to picture this, even middle class libs don't or won't see them but yes Virginia, there IS a subclass of people who WORK for a living, get shit pay, and live hand to mouth. They didn't wake up and say, "hey, health care, fuck that, I don't want it!" The FACT is they can't afford it, their peanut paychecks barley cover rent, auto insurance, food, utility bills, etc. So now you tell these people they are going to have to shit out $50-$100 a week extra for health care? It won't work, all that will happen is the unemployed numbers will go up as these people say fuck it and quit. Why work at all if the government is forcing so much money from you you can't pay all your bills?

I just love the whole "tax" angle the moronic Supreme court let this slide under. As we have the best congress money can buy it will only be a short time before the 1%'er corporations and the politicians get together to decide what the next "service" they will mandate the public buys.

No doubt they will mandate you buy the dildo they are going to assrape you with.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Who should get welfare?

There is an eternal argument about welfare. The most common is why pay people to not work; that is applied to poor people. Advocates of this type of welfare argue, "what about corporate welfare"?

It used to be most people weren't aware of corporate welfare, but now they are. Corporate welfare had a LOT to do with the occupy wall st movement. They didn't express that well, but if you dug down corporate welfare was at the heart of the resentment felt by many of them.

There are many types of Corporate welfare, I don't even begin to know them all. I'll provide a partial list here, anyone reading feel free to comment if you think I left anything out.
  • Non Profit Status - This isn't even considered corporate welfare but if you think about it it is.

    • Colleges

      You have Universities that have jacked up tuition way beyond the inflation rate year after year after year yet pay no taxes on huge volumes of land they are squatting on.

    • Churches

    • Charities

      If you can pay six and seven digit salaries to your ceo you can pay your damn taxes too.

    • This kind of speaks for itself. The catholic church isn't generating a profit? Really?

  • Allowing corporate use of public lands

    Typically government allows corporations to use public lands for a cost far less than they would have to pay a public sector land owner. Some examples are:



    There is a LOT of debate on this issue, but what should NOT be up for debate is that if corporations are going to lease PUBLIC land the very LEAST that should be required is they pay market rate for it. Currently they are damaging public resources while profiteering at the taxpayers expense.

  • Bailouts of banks and insurance companies

    Taxpayer funded government bailouts of "too big to fail" corporations has angered many people, big corporations get a helping hand up while peoples houses get repossessed in the never ending stagnant, shitty economy.

  • Corporate tax breaks

    One law for you, another for them.
I'm with conservatives when they say welfare for poor people needs to be tightly regulated. It should NOT be doling out government money for life, and recipients should not be allowed to use that money to buy luxury items, booze, or drugs. In Massachusetts welfare people get an "EBT" card, which they can cash out at any ATM. This allows them to buy crack, hookers, or anything else they want off the taxpayers dime.

So when it comes to who should get welfare, I don't think corporations should get ANY. They are a BUSINESS and in a REAL capitalist system need to stand or fall on their own.

I wouldn't eliminate welfare for poor people, but it should be put back to the helping hand up it was originally intended to be, and not be an eternal payout to those who won't work.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Can you outrun the wind?

I'm not a survivalist myself, I can't be, as I live in the city. If a real SHTF (shit hit the fan) event occurred I'd be screwed and die, with the rest of the city dwellers.

 One of the staples of survivalism is the bug out bag. Essentially three days supplies, enough to get you from where you are to where you want to be. I never thought I'd have the need for one until I read this article, especially the part:
we could see the explosion and diffusion into the North Pacific's winds and ocean currents of 10 times the radioactive material emitted by the Chernobyl disaster - rendering much of Asia, North America and many other corners of the globe uninhabitable for centuries.
So the issue there would be, could I out pedal the wind? You couldn't drive, the roads would be jammed. How far could I get before someone tried to jack the bike? How do you prevent that?

Would authorities let you leave? Government is fucked up, they may think they are "keeping order" by bottling everyone up where they are, even though it's a death sentence.

I assume since they said "North America" that would be U.S. and Canada. How far south would you have to go?

Would the government even TELL you the shit hit the fan, or would they wait until it was too late to "avoid panic"?

My synapses is that even if I was in the shape I was in when I had no car and biked everywhere(waist size was 34, took an athletic cut suit) the odds would be near or at 0. This is not just me being cynical, as stated above I DON'T think government would give people enough notice. This would allow the politicians and their rich friends to clear out without the roads being jammed up.

How fast do the winds travel? That is a HUGE factor and being no meteorologist I don't have a clue as to how much time you have to screw. The winds would probably hit California first as that is closer to Japan, but Mass is a shitty place to be, we are WAY up north, even in NORMAL traffic it takes days of 60mph driving to get to Florida. Mexico would be even worse and that is probably where you need to screw to, so yeah, thinking about it a bicycle is out, no way you could make it in time to avoid the poison rad winds. A wind pattern would be interesting, to find out just how far you'd have to go to avoid rad poisoning.

Well that was cheerful, I now know my intro was right, if that happened there is really no escape. I'd be buying a daisy farm, 6 x 3 ft plot.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Stand Your Ground Laws

Someone asked about stand your ground laws. I couldn't give an immediate answer, it's one of those things I had to think on for a while. I think a stand your ground law could work, but(like any law) it needs to be properly interpreted by prosecutors and judges.

The example on the news, Trayvon Martin is NOT under any sane interpretation a case of self defense. The person who killed him, George Zimmerman's only claim was that Martin "looked suspicious" (this is sometimes referred to as walking while black-NYC's stop and frisk works off of this principal). There wasn't even an initial confrontation, from all accounts Zimmerman chased after Martin, who of course ran from someone screaming at him for no reason. Even if they started fighting after that the aggressor clearly was Zimmerman, so under the stand your ground law it would have been Martin who had the right to shoot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

EDIT
Conflicting reports have since come in, it is possible there was an initial confrontation and that Trayvon was not run down. Even so, this is STILL a poor case to present an argument against stand your ground, as SYG didn't apply here!
Zimmerman shot Martin when Martin was on top of him. He was pinned down so at that time he had no option of retreat.

Chasing someone down for no reason and shooting them is pretty clearly murder; failure to prosecute in a case like has more to do with a racist/corrupt/inept police force than anything else.

This case is what a stand your ground law is SUPPOSED to prevent, prosecution of someone who is confronting an actual criminal. The public outcry did get the case dropped, but they had wanted to prosecute a guy who didn't even shoot or kill anyone, he just punched out a junkie who was trying to rip him off, and that was AFTER the guy took a swing at him.

So to sum it up stand your ground is like most laws, an honest judiciary can make it work, but it will fail under a corrupt one. Then again if the judiciary and the cops are corrupt you are in pretty deep shit overall; congrats you now live in a banana republic.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Who is Media?

Who is Media? If you asked that question, most people would probably name some large news organization, say, the NY Times, CNN, Fox, or maybe their local news channel. They may get more specific and name some news anchor or reporter who works for a major news outlet.

These corporations and people working for them are allowed to gather news under the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. No one disputes this.

But with the advancement of technology, most notably the portable digital camcorder, now even a part of many cell phones, a new kind of Media has sprung up. The independent Media. So now anyone with a blog and or youtube account can post their video to the internet, making them available to millions, this kind of dissemination only big corporate media had previously.

The occupy movement is a good example, it was not initially covered by mainstream media, but millions of people became aware of it through video footage taken by people with small video cams.

So the question gets asked: are these people really Media, a part of the press, are they protected under the first amendment of the constitution, just like a NY Times reporter is?
You will get different answers depending on who you ask. Police officers generally will say no, they arrested numerous people recording the occupy movement claiming they were "not media".

Some in the mainstream press feel this way. If you view the video here you will see a univision videographer with a camera the size of a bazooka on his shoulder telling a Ron Paul supporter that he is not allowed to film him. The attitude seems to be that working for a corporation gives someone exclusive 1st amendment rights, rights which are NOT extended to the hoi polloi riff raff with their small digicams.

Even some people at the very occupy movement whose story was broken by independent media don't believe people are covered under the 1st amendment if they don't work for a corporation.

Is this true? I don't think so. Lets start by looking at the text of the first amendment it's self.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You will note that NOWHERE in that statement does it say that you need to work for a company to be considered press.

This is affirmed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to "'every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'" von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).
Thats the good news here is the bad.

Case No. CV-11-57-HZ
OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP, LLC, and
KEVIN D. PADRICK vs CRYSTAL COX

Here Judge Hernandez states that defendant blogger Cox is "not media"

From:Boston.com
"Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" is considered "media" for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim. Without any controlling or persuasive authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is "media," triggering the negligence standard."

"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

That means, to be a journalist, you've got to:
  • Have studied journalism in school (college, I assume, which can get expensive).

  • Work for a media outlet other than an independent blog (that rules out thousands of bloggers doing good journalism).

  • Maintain established journalism standards (whose standards? Standards in journalism tend to be, um, fluid).

  • Get both sides of the story (Hey, FoxNews and MSNBC and the Boston Herald and the Boston Phoenix and a whole bunch of other news organizations: From now on, you are no longer journalists).
So under THIS decision anyone who didn't take journalism classes and is not working for a company isn't media and is NOT covered by the 1st amendment. This decision if chosen over von Bulow v. von Bulow denies 1st amendment press protection to just about the entire independent media community.

So just who the fuck IS media? Well, according to 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and any SANE, RATIONAL person with the ability to read the actual text of the first amendment it's anyone who disseminates information to the public.

According to Judge Hernandez and all too many blowhards in government and corporate media-land the first amendment of the constitution only applies to people who work for a news media company. Under THIS strict and narrow definition when government tells citizens to put their cameras away, they have to obey.