disillusionment.

This morning I just realized, while reading an article opposed to “bailing out” the auto companies, the cause of this hostility toward American auto-makers.

You see, when a child reads Popular Mechanics they believe it. When they see images of flying concept cars and streamlined coupes, they expect to own them once they grow up. They see the swept-wing stylings of  ‘57 Thunderbirds and  ‘59 Cadillacs. They grow into budding teenagers driving big-block GTOs and souped-up Mustangs. Or at least, sitting idly aside while envying those who did.

But as they came oh so near to their piece of the pie, to the slice of iron that they were owed, it all fell apart; The oil ran dry, the prices ran high, and the style, the power, the panache went dim. Engines were systematically choked by the Clean Air Act, they were starved by CAFE standards, speed limits plummeted to 55, and worst of all, innovative designs were marred by NHTSA regulations as well as crash impact requirements.

The piece of Americana which these men and women had felt entitled to, had felt promised, was quietly taken behind the barn, and they didn’t even notice. They just turned to the new imported wonders. They bought up the cheap steel which was stamped together in foreign lands, by unknown soiled hands, under paid, over worked, endangered on a daily basis; and the profits went to their overseers.

Meanwhile, out to pasture, the American worker starved too, but not because he was underpaid, and not because he could not make a superior product, but simply because of free trade.

But I’m not here to lecture on free trade, god knows I’ve done that before; I’m here to show that the disillusionment so many have felt toward Detroit is unfounded. Unlike Exxon, they have not extorted the American public. They have not reaped inordinate profits. They have never starved their workers as Hyundai does on our own shores.

My point, quite simply, is a request to all; please target your hate at the appropriate cause. Do not starve your dog and justify its death by saying it did not eat. And especially, when it’s weak and dying, do not give it a bite and expect that to absolve you of guilt.

a Case Against USF’s Filesharing Policy

I should be asleep, but I cannot with this on my mind.

The University of South Florida scans all internet usage for potential violations of file sharing law/policy/whatever the heck it wants. I assume that it is somewhere in the usage agreement which must be agreed to prior to use. Regardless, this is an unconstitutional violation of my protection against unreasonable and unwarranted searches as well as a violation of my right to use those services for which I’ve paid.

Specifically, the use of the internet is required for modern college education. Honestly, that point needs no explanation. From the required online research to the required use of Blackboard; denying use of the internet, while simultaneously requiring it, is the same thing as denying students an education.

I don’t mean to say that the school does not have the right to deny admissions for any number of reasons or specify rules for the use of included services, but the requirement that students forfeit the right to privacy is not one of those rights. The University of South Florida, is a state university. It is an agent of the State of Florida, and its requirement that searches be allowed is similarly, an action of the state.

This is, however, a false choice. While it appears a option exists to maintain your right to privacy, this option is plainly that you do not receive a college education. Public universities are THE mechanism for higher education. They are funded by state-wide and federal taxes. They are the only semi-affordable educational opportunity. And, they are not an option at all.

College education is a requirement in today’s society. It is a Right. Without at least a bachelor’s degree no reasonably good job may be had. The old option(or rather standard), of apprenticeship has not only died, but has been brutally killed by the systematic licensing of every possible profession. It has gotten to the point that the word profession, is defined by whether a license is required. If not, it is simply a job or career, but no profession. And if these reasonable professions cannot be reached without a college degree, imagine something like, god forbid, a lawyer. In that case, you can’t even get into college to qualify to take the licensing test to be admitted to the bar to practice law without first going to another college.

So the ‘options’ are simple: 1. Forfeit your right to privacy or 2. Forfeit your right to Education and to Pursue Happiness

PS. Doesn’t a College’s aliegence lie with its students? It is not their duty to protect the interests of their students? To protect their rights to the utmost allowed by law? To promote liberty? Democracy? Dare I say, Civil Disobenience?

the Constitutional Arguement Against Firearms Registration.

The slippery sloap arguement that the registration of firearms leads to and facilitates their prohibition and confiscation is a noteworthy point. History show a great many examples of this, and in fact, every marginally effective confiscation of arms has been preceded by their registration. It’s hard to confiscate something if you don’t know where they are or how many of them exist.

This is however an ultimately irrelevant point. It focuses on the merits of another issue(the right to own guns) and ignores the merits of the issue at hand(registration). That said, a clear and constitutional arguement against registration exists.:

The Second Ammendment protects both the right to Keep and to Bear Arms. Now how does registration infringe on these?

To ground the discussion, lets start on the topic of arms. What arms are included in this list, or at least what minimum arms are protected? Well quite clearly, as the Heller  case upheld, there is the right to keep and bear handguns and longarms in a readily operable(unlocked) state. But more basically, could arms be limited to .22lr and 2″ blades? Obviously not, while it meets the requirement of allowing arms, their utility is greatly harms, their effectiveness is greatly lessened, and ultimately all meaning is stripped from the word ‘Arms’. Therefor, ‘arms’ does not simply include any arms, but imples a certian level of effectiveness. It means that they may not be rendered useless.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is not limited solely to the physical act of having it on one’s person. There are far many more aspects of bearing which the word ‘bearing’ includes. Amongst these are the ability to use them effectively, to be able to train with the weapon and become familiar with its operation,  to be able to use it in all apropriate situations not merely a subset, to do many other things. Now if firearms must be registered, then this greatly harms your ability to bear them. After all, the effectiveness of arms depends in part on the enemy’s knowledge of that weapon. Does the potential enemy know you have a weapon? Do they know what capabilities it has?  Do they know who owns it and where it is stored? These are all things which would harm the militia’s ability to bear arms against anyone with access to the registration list, and since the purpose of the militia is to protect the authentic ‘State’ from both external and internal forces, even the state’s knowledge of the public firearm ownership greatly harm’s their ability to bear them.

Furthermore, registration infringes on the keeping aspect of the 2A. Specifically, Keeping arms includes as demonstrated, more than the simple posession of arms. It includes the posession; the storage, the mantanience; the knowledge of which arms are stored, the checking in and out of arms for use, the recording of sale or purchase of arms. Thus for the state to take control of any aspect of this process of keeping arms, to control, regulate and monitor the purchase and sale and storage of arms usurps the people’s righ to keep them

Imigration and Americanization

It is understandable for a person to move to another nation to seek the opportunities which it provides, and which are unavailable in their native country. Similarly, it is understandable for them to wish to keep their culture, mindset, beliefs and social temperament unchanged. There is talk that Americanization rapes immigrants of their heritage.

It is however the opposite. For if the people of one nation do not have the opportunities of another, it is for some reason; it may be physical or biological(which it obviously isn’t); it may arise for the form of government and the particular laws it imposes; and it may be the result of their culture, and social temperament. Whatever the cause, it is not random that some nations prosper more than merely their physical conditions indicate they would. There is a certain level of efficiency/effectiveness in their ideas.

For a people to move into such a more prosperous nation, take advantage of its promise, and yet maintain the culture and outlook which failed to provide them change, rapes the more prosperous State of its gains. Furthermore, if those people reproduce at an  inordinate rate they can effectively take over, or alter the landscape of the country they move into and to such an extent that it is ruled not by the ideas of the founders and their decedents, but by the unsuccessful ideas of outsiders who refuse to adopt the the successful strategy of their new ‘home’.

Not all immigrants refuse to adopt their new country’s society as their own, however by moving to another country and discounting its culture, society and governers many bite the hand which feeds them.

Anarchy as Oppression

“Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying.” – the Joker

It’s suprising how true this is. How, there may be resistance to bad plans, but so long as they go as expected then it’s nothing to panic about. The rule of law, the rule of the plan, is still in control.

We’ve talked about the definitions of Freedom and Oppression in class. We’ve gone over Marx, Nietzsche, some Marcusa, Friere, Havel, and now this feminist chick(lol); and I’ve reached the conclusion that as they argue freedom entails a level of uncoerced action. That many times, we focus too much on the coercion aspect, to the deficit of the action part. But what really makes us human is exactly that action part. It is choice part of action. Coercion will always exist. Even in a state of nature, where there is no law, there is coercion in the form of others, of predators, of even in the absence of those, hunger, cold, etc. ; all which exert influence on our ability to act on our own accord.

In a wierd way, it is for this reason that the Joker is deeply liberating. His ultimate goal, is to create disorder (well maybe to oppose Batman, but since he wants to uphold order/peace, the Joker incites the opposite). His goal is to get people to act as free individuals, to act without the pressures which are applied by society and government.

The problem is that a democratic government, so long as participation is common, is the epitome of free action. (damn I just forgot the a great point to the arguement) To return society to a state of nature, is exactly that, to return it to a lower order of existence. It denies and opposes the right of people to ally with others and form coalitions. Anarchy, it aiming to create absolute freedom is quite possibly more oppressive than totalitarianism or Hobbesian governments, and at least oppressive.

(remember not all coercion is oppression)

On Federal Assistance

As I’m sure it’s clear, I’m not one to support Federal “Assistance”. Companies come and go, they grow and die, and as one passes into bankruptcy another takes it’s place. As a man told me today, there’s always someone right behind you to pick up the pieces, for themselves that is, and that’s not necessarily bad, because they’ve seen you carry it. They’ve watched your techniques and when a critical failure occurred they saw it, learning from the mistake.

But if the government is to give 150 Billion dollars to AIG as the NYT reports today, then why them? I do not like the idea of spending 150 billion, let alone all in one place. After all, if every single American, man woman and child, is going to have to pay $500 then darn well better be for something important.

In another paper, I read that GM is receiving a 25 Billion dollar Loan. Honestly, this makes more sense. While I do not doubt that AIG employs many and has a significant role in world markets, I’d suggest that GM plays a larger role. Indeed, after all the talk about alternative fuel sources and our dependence on foreign oil for transportation, doesn’t  GM directly control a major portion of the US energy policy?

While it’s become popular to complain about American cars, a trend I much disgust and is entirely unwarranted, their costs must be considered. On on hand they’re slammed for cutting and negotiating pension releases. They’re insulted for laying off workers and closing plants for their “profit”. Yet, at the same time, they lose market share to foreign their competitors. Why is it so hard to connect the two? Is it not obvious that it’s hard to compete with companies that don’t treat workers as well when you do? Is it not clear that technological development is dependent upon the amount of free capital available to be invested in such research? Is it not clear that as a result of free trade many foreign companies gain an unfair advantage by foregoing civil liberties and labor rights which are taken for granted here? Is it not also so true that as a result of this American companies have been less able to adapt, to re-tool for smaller cars, and to shift to other fuels.

We have the technology. We’ve seen Hydrogen Fuel-Cell cars. They’ve made prototypes, they’ve showed off design concepts, they’ve built partnerships with leading American research companies to design viable alternatives. We’ve seen this out of American companies well before the Toyota Prius. We need to put our money where our mouth is. And I don’t mean write yet another check, but overturn the allocation of the trillions and use that for change, not the maintenance of an already flawed financial system.

Sadly, that’s not going to happen.

Unforseen Intellegence

Today Obama had his first press conference as President-Elect and while I didn’t watch it all I saw one question that sparked my interest. The lady asked whether any of the new information he was privy to has lead him to take pause or change any of those policies he campaigned on. His response was quite reasonably, that he must decine that questions.

Now, it’s not only plausable that the President-Elect may change his positions once informed of new classified information. Indeed, when new knowledge is gained it is imparative to re-evaluate the postions you’ve previously held considering the new perspective.

The fact that he declined to answer this does not it’s self signify too much. If obviously he has or is changing his opinions the he obviously would decline not just to avoid backlash, but also so as not to reveal anything about the information he has recieved. Saying his policy on Iraq has changed would indicate that important information regarding the necessity of Iraq is not available to the public. Of course this is fairly obvious that it is or would be. But just the same, if his policies have not changed, this would similarly reveal that the US is not in posession of information that makes the US involvement necessary.

Now if our involvement is indeed necessary as a result of Iranian activities, and Obama said his opinion is the same, that would mean he’s, and the US, is unaware of Iran’s activities. If he said he is changing, then well.. I’ve already said what..

My point is, do not expect him to follow through with what he campaigned on. This isn’t to say he’s disloyal to his word, but that when new information is available, new outcomes are reached. And if it takes a day longer than 16 months(or whatever he said) for US troops to leave, then have no doubt there is good cause for us to remain there. And this, is exactly what I expect to occur.

On Unmanned Law Enforcement Cameras

Very few would say that until today the rule of law did not exist. Even centuries before law came to limit it’s enforcers, it ruled with an iron fist over the governed. There was of course crime. While not everyone obeyed the law, it was enforced and those who broke it, or sufficient a subset, were captured and punished. The fact that some escaped punishment, did not subvert the rule of law.

This is not to say that successful avoidance of punishment does not threaten the rule of law, but rather that it threatens mainly the rule of those laws which are unenforced(unenforceable), leaving those laws where punishment is certain almost as effective as always.

For disobedience, however, to become so grand that the rule of such a law is threatened indicates a great disapproval for the law. That even if the majority of the population believed in it, the fact that majority could not afford to enforce the particular law upon a minority indicates exactly how large that minority is.

In this, physical law enforcement provides a check upon oppressive laws; for not only must such massive resources be allocated to the law but actual humans must enforce it; neighbors and fellow citizens must look into their compatriot’s eyes, grab their hands, and cuff them; they must do so knowing that this arrest does nothing to enforce the law, that this arrest is not an act against a group let alone the crime its self, but is an act against a particular individual, an act of oppression which has no beneficial aspect.

With unmanned video and photographic surveillance, this is not the case. A man drives down the road. The radar clocks him at 5 over. It takes a photograph. It records video. It is visually checked by an officer and mailed out along with a copy of the photo, and all day long, the officer does the same thing. He sees a picture; this guy ran a red light, this woman was going 8 over, this family was going 5 over, this person was going 15 over. Lick. Stick. Send.

I am not saying that it should be legal to run red lights, but red lights were enforced well before there were camera’s to do the job. Speeding laws were enforced well before automated radar-equiped camera’s hit the streets of the UK. The enforcement was not complete. Some got away. Many were not even witnessed. But the rule of these laws was not compromised.

If no one sees a man run a red light, did he break the law? Sure, but what does it matter?

If I drive at least 70, 75, 80,  on I-275 where the speed limit is 55 and no officer pulls me over, should I be ticketed?

If a poor disillusioned youngster spray paints, “Worker’s of the world Unite!” on the side of a wall, should there be a camera to watch him?

If you light up a joint, should there be a camera to watch you?

Should there be a camera watching you on the way to work?

On the way to school?

On the way to your AA meeting?

If we can’t hire enough police to enforce a law, and neighbors are unwilling to call the police when they see a “crime” in progress, should that act really be a crime? When last did you call the cops because someone was driving 75 on I-275? Would you? How about if they were driving 90? What about 110? Answer that question for youself, and my answer to you will be the same, that’s what the law should be.

Change has come..?

“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America.” Obama

To the extent that a half-black man has been elected President of the United States, some change has come, but rather than being its self change, it is indicitive of change which has occured over the years since the Civil Rights movement. Indeed, the election of Barack Obama both indicates how far we’ve come and positions America in step to make many more strides. While I disagree with the route he intends to take the nation, no one can disagree that we are in a far better position than we were many decades ago.

That said, change has not come. His election, while signifying the sucess of past efforts, is in it’s self no change. From 6pm November 4th to 11pm Nobember 4th, nothing changed. Hopes grew, the nation’s image bettered, but not one substancial effect has occured. This is not to say he will not forever change the way America works, but rather to note that celebration at this point is quite premature.

His path, while endlessly touted as a turn, has not been clearly plotted. Where we go from here is yet to be determined, and since we’ve not discussed the merits of any position, we’ve decided who will lead, but do not know where we want to go.

Campaigns and modern Liberal/Conservative Politics

The problem with McCain is that he’s run a terrible campaign. There’s really no argument on this, at the very least it must be recognized that Obama has done an impeccable job and harnessing new technologies and fund raising. He’s literally drowning in money, with iirc $150 million left to spend in only 5 or so days. He truly cannot spend all the money he’s made.

For McCain, the opposite isn’t his problem. He’s not bathing in money, but he’s also not dehydrating in the middle of the desert. He does have enough to have his message heard. The problem is that his message, is largely a losing message. This is not to say that his message is a bad one, or that he would be a worse president, here the opposite is true.

The problem is that McCain has been placed into a position where he has to play politics as usual. He has been competing against a message of change, which most ironically, is the message he’s been toting for the past 27 years. You see, Obama is the “obvious” candidate. His policies and positions are so obviously moral that he offends no one. He can make no enemies by supporting education. He can make no enemies by giving bigger tax cuts to more people. He can make no enemies by saying everyone deserves health care. He has little of a past, and an impeccable soapbox which cannot be attacked for anything.

But this soapbox isn’t made of wood to hold soap, it is actually made of soap. These ideas he has are almost without exception either ill defined or patently incorrect. As a result McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He can’t choose to wash away Obama’s soapbox and explain how each and every one of his issues are wrong, because he’ll make far to many enemies. Many simply do not care, and will never be convinced. Far too many vote solely on “Who will give me the bigger tax cut?”, but when the economic problem we have is a lack of investment resulting from bank crashes, increasing demand is exactly the wrong thing to do. Giving “Joe Six-pack”, though I hate the name, more money won’t change anything, the banks have been doing that for the past few years.

But just as he can’t be open about the need to decrease the upper brackets more than the lower(which he actually has the balls to say), he can’t be open about any issue, health care, terrorism, etc. That said, he also can’t change his position because he has a 27 year track record.

The point is, McCain should have done as he wanted, and brought the straight talk express right through town. He should have laid out his real position, without trying to make it more politically likable and said, “Here’s me, I’m sure you’ll disagree with some, but here’s my arguement.” He should have shown is record, and rather than campaigning for the presidency should have spent a year and a half arguing the points. Like the real world, they aren’t on their face the most appealing points, but they have the benefit of being true and correct. He needed to pull the nastiest campaign ever seen, not against Obama, but against his positions. Like Obama supporters say day in and day out, this election is bigger than the presidency. It had the opportunity to be real change, a referendum on American politics. Instead, he listened to his advisers, he listened to common wisdom and as it opposed his common sense and good wisdom, it resulted in an erratic campaign. A campaign which mixed, like America’s economy, thing which people want to hear with thing which people need to hear. It under supported points and over-emphasized others.

If this election is lost for McCain, then it would have been lost no matter what he said. If he had done what I here suggest and lost, then that would have been a referendum. If he had done it and won, that would have been a referendum. The referendum isn’t what the people choose, but whether the people actually are given a choice. Because while the outcome of this election will determine the direction of the nation, its lack of discourse has all but damned it’s destiny.

A topic much discussed.

Now I’ve talked about this before, and if you’re reading this, you’ve probably read that too. But the relevance of my classes recently compels me to clarify. You see, in contemporary political thought we’ve read a couple essays and parts of books which demonstrate the way in which society may become auto-totalitarian; how in Soviet style countries during the cold war the green-grocer put up signs saying “Worker’s of the World Unite!” Yet, he was not the only one to do so. His neighbor did so, the office-worker did so, everyone did so, because in truth they were compelled to do so. In some part it was the government, but mostly, it was because one did that the other must. And in doing so they did not genuinely tell workers to unite, rather they expressed their submission, while saving face behind the security of ideology and in doing so created a perception, and a practical reality that a united opinion existed. While this is considered, even in our class, to be a fairly recent occurrence I’m not sure. I am however sure it is occurring today, not here, but in the Middle East. This is exactly the auto-totalitarianism which we are facing. While they may not put signs in their window pronouncing “Death to America” they put scarves on their face and submit to the power of the ideology. However, it is not mere ideology, as in the case of communism, it is simply an opinion, a belief that we would be better off, a belief that the government at hand is actually communist, rather than a state capitalism. With Islam the forces are much greater, the belief stronger, the punishments not only harsher, but prescribed by god himself, the imposition that the more strict. Where a velvet revolution was possible in Czechoslovakia, taking the signs down are not enough. The majority is too large, the minority to uneducated of the alternative. It is a sense of oppression which drives revolution, but in order to feel oppressed there must not only be an alternative, but you must genuinely know of it; you must on some level be able to experience it, or see it. This is what the US invasion of Iraq aims to correct.

We can’t invade every country that has oppressed people, but in this case the ideology was not simply opposed to ours, but actively trying to destroy, not our way of life, but us as individuals.

I can’t say for certain that this was George Bush’s goal. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t Colin Powell’s. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t the majority of the congress’s. In truth, I can’t say that it was the goal of anyone in particular, but it is the effect, and even if it is the most improbable of co-incidences, it’s one I’ll take.

What the president should have said:

Today, my fellow Americans, we are in a somber state of affairs. Several of the nation’s greatest banks have passed and several more are on that same path. They have been plagued by the disease of failed mortgages. They have lent unfounded money to borrowers who’ve had no ability to return it, and consequences if this are now readily apparent.

Indeed, these are of the most sudden passings which have shocked both citizens and shareholders across the nation.

Yet, while it is not unheard of for a man to fall dead mid-stride, such death of a great many does not occur; rather, it is the death of these few which has broken the ranks of the silently ill. Their fate, their failure, can no longer be concealed.

Too many have been mislead regarding the health of these institutions, and the savings of far too many are set to fail with then.

Let it be clear that those who have partaken in fraudulent or in anyway inappropriate and illegal actions will be pursued with the utmost severity.

I’ve instructed congress to proceed with negotiations regarding a reimbursement plan for those investors who such banks have defrauded.

This will be a slow procedure, and the markets will undoubtedly require time to regulate, but the foundations of our economy are strong and America will continue to prosper

What gives you the right?

So far I’ve really only read Nietzsche’s  first essay and parts of he second in the Genealogy of Morals, but he seems to have very good point, in many ways similar to what I already believed, and influencing my though in general.

The point however is, “What gives you the right?” I saw this as a question a while ago. I’ve heard it as a question; as an attack. I’ve read the Habits of the Heart, and they’ve attacked individualists morality as lacking substance. Yet, who has authority? Does not each individual have complete authority over himself? Nay, does not an individual have authority over all things which he both claims authority over and which submits to his authority? The slave is a slave only so long as he is submits to his masters authority rather than his own; and his master’s claim to ownership, to authority over the slave is only valid in that the slave consents. Indeed it is the same with government. For so long as we submit to the laws of the land and authority of of the state, we are it’s subjects. Yet, it is important to note that this, subjection is not inherently bad. Indeed, as I recall previously stating, a subject of a “free” state is demonstrably more free that he who is not; for he who is not may my just in acting beyond the laws of such a state but is too in danger of being justly injured in such a way which law would have prohibited.

But when another asks of you, “What gives you the right..” do not answer god, or law, but rather I demand this right! I demand self determination. We have agreed in this nation upon a constitution, of methods of amendment and legislation, of limits upon powers and actors, and I will uphold my end of that bargain. I will vote. I will work for a just state, and as our independence declares, I will make sure “you” uphold your end too.

Habits of the Passive Heart

the world is just about over. Or so at least the prophets claim, and while prefaces edited revise the prediction to cast it further into the already arrived upon future, we see that there is little that can be done to save us.

we must learn to help one another. we must learn to destroy our individualism and materialism. it is through community which the whole may survive. for the free market has only allowed the few to prosper and the masses to sink. social security is the security of society, …

But when we take from the youth to pay for the elderly, we are in fact acting on the belief that the youth and middle-aged are unable to plan for their future. In fact, we are acting on the belief that the masses are unable to care their own basic needs, and if this is the case… does that not mean that this experiment of a nation has failed? Indeed it was founded on the concept of liberty, and inherent to liberty is the concept of individualism and self reliance. Without individualism and the self-determination which it implies, there is no freedom.

There is no future in this line of thought. While it may seem to some that the actions of Europe have proved successful, they are still the actions of old Europe. They are based in a conception that man is incapable of self-governance. Incapable of governing his immediate surrounding and daily aspects of life, and incapable of governing his fellow man.

Nay. Patrick Henry had it right; give me liberty or give me death for I’m riding this one into the dirt. I’m putting all my eggs in this basket. I cannot say without a doubt that a free nation can forever endure, but so long as it’s citizens prefer a secure life to the dangers of a free one I know that it cannot.

I wish a nigga would.

There is that point; the “I wish a nigga would” point; The point where you wish you had a clear justification for what you know are already have justification for; The point where you wish you could turn to violence.

Well you can, for by the nature of that thought you realize that the tyranny you are suffering is greater than that which would be imposed in open violent conflict. It is therefore the point where the utility of that other, or that government is exhausted. To continue without violence is to submit to intellectual slavery. It is to recognize your abused status yet leave the power of action in the hands of those who oppress. Be it intentional or accidental, the clear justification which you are waiting for may never come.

And, while it may be an attractive idea to inspect the actions of the oppressor in search of that obvious infraction, it serves only to demonstrate a belief that the oppressor is of weaker intellectual fortitude; that he will slip up and allow that clear justification to manifest. Yet, it is naïve to assume the oppressor is of weak intelligence. Indeed, that is exactly the trait with which he initially gained power. So with a physical weakness already demonstrated, why should one ever wait beyond that point? While the state may have loosened its hold on the body of man, that is no justification for the converse. It has merely lulled society into a mentality of pacifism.

A peculiar cycle

There is no doubt that at least some illicit drugs are harmful to the user. The individual detriment of marijuana, alcohol, and lsd may be minimal or at least manageable by a non-addictive person. And while I’m also sure there are others with limited inherently harmful effects, there is no doubt that many are harmful, and even the three previously listed can have very harmful effects if not used wisely and in moderation. So it’s clear that there is a social motivation to restrict access or prohibit the drugs.

However, as with speed limits, the compliance is often either rare or at least frequently broken by very significant portions of the public. As I write this I can can say with confidence that you have probably broken substance laws, if not do so fairly often.

But the effect of this, other than millions of arrests for drug charges, is far more detrimental than many would initially suspect. Many cite that crack cocaine for example can cause crime as it drains the financial resources of the addicted and drives them to illegal means of profitability like robbery, or drug dealing.

However, that is not nearly the worst affect of drug’s illegalization. Rather, since many many individuals, especially the “black”/poor community commonly possess marijuana or crack they are constantly breaking the law, and frequently felonies which carry significant jail time. Because of this, when they are the victim of a crime against them, they are in a particularly sticky situation. While law enforcement is established to protect everyone, including petty criminals, they are still subject to arrest for that pot/crack. This causes those individuals to resort to other methods of self defense and community policing that don’t subject them to the constant threat of jail time.

In fact, I feel it is solely because of the illegal status of popular drugs that gangs exist. It causes large portions of the public to fear the police and the government which are intended to protect them. They feel that the police are not there to protect them, and to some extent, they are not.

And while I didn’t initially intend to go into the affect of gangs, I must note that since gangs operate through largely illegal means(many arrested for felony drug charges thus prohibiting the possession of firearms while are society’s main tool of self defense). And because individuals come to rely on the protection of gangs, they enter a place where they can no longer report the socially harmful actions of the gang. And as their power grows so does their ability to harm without repercussions.

So the question remains as to what should be done. And while I wasn’t sure when I began writing, I now lean to the idea that we should legalize at least those drugs which are popular such as marijuana and crack. While crack is almost universally understood to be very harmful, that is in some way why it should be legal. With cocaine as tobacco, the fact that it’s harmful is known by all. And with the assistance of educational campaigns very very few would fall into the harmful effects without doing so by their own weighed decision.

On the other hand, the presence of gangs, not only harms very many in the community and promotes crime such as robbery, retributional murder, and so forth, it challenges the authority of the government. It steals the public allegiance from the the stable government to unstable social organizations, and as they realize the instability of this ancient social design, they lose all sense of security. They become essentially citizens of no state with no defenders but themselves, and as a result of felony drug charges, they are not even allowed to own guns to protect themselves with.

In fact while drugs alone only harm the user and those close by, the gangs which their illegalization create harm the whole of society. It makes it so that government, no matter how much it wishes cannot represent large portions of its citizenry.

It is exactly what we saw with the prohibition of alcohol. That was far worse because almost all of society drink alcohol at least occasionally and many do frequently. However while the effects of alcohol prohibition may have nearly devastated the government and society in just 14 years, the popularity of other drugs is just at the level that government/society can survive under the costs. Yet while the we continue to survive the costs (financial and not), the social harm significantly outweighs the benefits. It merely hasn’t yet bankrupted society.

What is a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Privacy, as in the truest sense, the ability to keep an action or matter secret. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines two states of privacy which lead to this end. First is “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation”. Secondarily, privacy is the “freedom from unauthorized intrusion”.

The second definition, is the right in private from the first, and is explicitly accounted for in the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, numerous Supreme Court rulings have overwhelmingly recognized that one’s “reasonable expectations of privacy”, seen in the first state, are also protected.

Obviously, the second type of privacy does not apply to public realms, but rather is likely a reference to the constitutional protection in private ones. However, since a person may be apart from both company and observation while in “public”, we are assured that some extent of privacy must exist in public.

In order to determine exactly how far that privacy extends, a line must be drawn at where that privacy does not extend; Namely anyone who accompanies or observes another is an exception to that other’s privacy.

However with the advent of video cameras, high-magnification lenses, and thermal imaging, the range, accuracy, and time order of observation have extended to an inhuman, and therefor unreasonable extent.

It is clearly unreasonable to suggest that everyone should expect to be observed by a completely imperceptible cameramen, equipped with a telescopic lense from miles away, let alone a satellite orbiting outer space.

It is also, clearly unreasonable to suggest that anyone should expect that another person may peer into a crystal ball, several days or years afterward, and watch exactly what they were doing halfway around the world at any particular instant.

And, as the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. US, it is clearly unreasonable to suggest that anyone should expect others to use Superman-like X-Ray vision to look directly through their household walls.

In summary, privacy is neither complete nor without exception. However, even in “public”, citizens have the right to have their reasonable expectations of privacy protected, and amongst that which is to be protected against is the governmental use of video, photographic and thermal imaging devices for warrantless observation.

Fired Federal Prosecutors

Now I haven’t, and never do, read the newspaper. And I don’t haven’t researched the topic thoroughly, but that’s why I have MSNBC and the Daily Show(and occasionally FOX).

The problem is, no one is actually saying anything about the firings. Sure, they’re throwing out their opinions. Someone mentioned that one of them was investigating a republican. But that’s it. Why won’t they give us the info.

Nationally, how often do these prosecutors investigate congress members? Is it even significant? How does it compare to the fired sample? Does the population investigate Democrats or Republicans more than one another? How does the fired sample compare?

Maybe it’s actually related to their performance. Instead of telling me that a couple had good “ratings”. Tell me what that means. May they have been focusing too heavily on illegal stock trading, and not prosecuting women and doctors who perform illegal abortions? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for an non-medically-necessary 3rd trimester abortion(illegal).

Maybe it’s political to the extent that those in charge felt they were not focusing heavily enough upon drugs, or anything. All I ask is that the news stations research this stuff. It’s basic. Just cover your bases. Is there anything significantly different between the fired ones and the rest.

Don’t just assume shit.

Back from the United Kingdom

After centuries of oppression, of foreign and domestic tyranny in India, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and in their own home; through protestant reformations, massive exodus, and disastrous wars; the land of from which so many have come, has not changed.

Indeed it has; it’s colonies have dwindled and it’s power fallen significantly. However the mentality of the people, and oppressive nature and not changed in the slightest.

In a local pub words shocked me and the fell from the lips of a nice lady. A local to Scotland, she passed to us the history of her trip to America, and within it, the sight of a police officer carrying a gun. The fear in her eyes, over a year later, swelled up and she explained how she paniced. Not literally, she held her fear quite well, yet never explained the cause.

Truthfully, I did not understand it, and still dont. But I suppose it comes from a general culture of fear. The only good reason why a sane person would fear a gun, is if they feared the person holding it. So when a country moves to ban all guns, it’s not because they fear the gun. Only ignorance to suggest that, the individuals of the nation all feel as though there no one they can trust. They put of 17 million government cameras to watch one another, millions more private. But it is never enough. Because no matter what they do. There’s no one they feel they can trust.

I arrived during, as one TV station reported, “A terrible weekend of knife violence.” The Edinburgh reporter proceeded to say that only twenty some odd knives were turned in thus far, during the knife amnesty month. He threw the at the ground, a machete, a pocket knife, a butter knife, a butcher’s knife. And I laughed. But really I cried.

This is where we are going.

It’s not that they don’t trust one another, or maybe it is. But ultimately, they don’t trust themselves. They want to watch everyone. Everyone is either good or evil. But they fail to realize. Almost everyone is good. Most everyone tries to do what’s right, it’s differences here which causes problems. But in the end, these aren’t problems. Nor are truly bad people. For they cannot change. And they are destine to fail to be killed off theoretically or literally. But when everyone is afraid of one another, and no one can break the law, no one can break the law. And it is discretion, in the grand scheme of thing that cleanses the globe. Some times people need to be killed. Things need to be stolen. And hatred for criminals is so strong, and no one is willing to weigh the motives. well I’m yet to understand it all.

But I can say right now, this won’t happen here. I’ll figure out what I’m thinking. I will write it down and will change the way we are beginning to think. And if all fails, then I’ll simply prove ideas wrong, one by one.

I don’t know. Maybe it won’t be that bad. But is is for them. For them, it is too late for preventative measures. Terrorism will win there. The country will collapse. What happens afterwards is a direct result of America’s path. Will we fall too? Or will we stand. Will we rebuild? I will. I am right now.

Where’s the bigotry? Insane my ass.

I don’t want to sound like Tom Cruise, but in one very narrow sense I agree. There’s is no such thing as a brain disorder. Brains function in different way, and no two are alike. Some are more intelligent, others less so. Some recognize abstract congruences, others follow a straighter, more grounded, path. The point is, the is no right or wrong way to think. That is the point of the brain; to cast a large net with which to survive in Darwin’s world. The concept that one particular mind reaches different conclusions from the rest has no bearing on this philosophy.

Certainly, some chemicals or medicines may alter the processes of the deviant to think in a manner in line with others, but that is just that; an act. I feel neither for nor against the pursuit to conform. If taking the medicines helps you interact, more power to you, but it’s not curing anything. In order to cure, there must be a flaw in the operation of the body (ex. Broken bone, lacerated skin, etc.).

It is for this reason that the mentally deficient should not be treated any differently under the eyes of the law. Ignorance is no excuse. They didn’t choose to not know the effects, but on the same token, I didn’t choose to get pissed off when they called me fat. Either way, the way our brains process information decided to kill the other and we acted out.

This also applies temporary insanity. One could argue that by getting pissed off, I went insane. But who is to say I could not think? Who is to say what insanity is? An insane man still thinks. An enraged man still thinks, skewed, but such is the proper functioning of their body.

So unless something actually effects the processes of one’s brain(ex. Involuntary consumption of intoxicants, external electrical current to the brain effecting thought, etc.) the punishment should not change.

In summary I suppose, insane means nothing. In Communist Russia Capitalists were considered mentally deficient. Were they? Of course not. They just thought differently.

The Mexican immigration problem (and solution).

Of course hardworking immigrants benefit society. However, a growing population makes it harder to maintain a high per capita GDP. As with all problems you must look at the underlying cause rather than the result.

Mexicans are coming to America because they can make more money. Now we could either stop being profitable, or make Mexico more profitable. Obviously, the solution is to make Mexico better.

The problem with that is how we do that from up here? Well, I don’t really think it’s that hard. We’ve managed to do a fairly good job to instituting Democracy in Iraq so far. The difference is that Mexico is already “Democratic.” This may be a good thing or a bad thing.

Clearly Mexico’s Democracy isn’t doing much to stifle corruption, the drug trade, or protect those trying to change it. The underlying problem is the Mexican people’s lack of meaningful power. While they can vote for people, they have no way to enforce their votes, and no way to protect themselves from violent, government sanctioned, drug cartels. Or is it a drug cartel sanctioned government? Or is it both?

The solution is to give arms, and power to the people(Guns are illegal there.). It won’t significantly raise crime because criminals already have guns, and they pay off the government to prevent prosecution.

This with American political assistance, Mexico may cleanse their political system and their nation as a whole. And with liberty comes prosperity.

People will move out of the illicit drug market and into more stable markets. More Companies will operate there because they would no longer have to bribe government officials and can spend less on security, thereby increasing profitability.

Gun Blog; Part 2

So the question remains, could you fend off a gun wielding attacker for the average of 7-8 minutes it takes for cops to arrive? Maybe you could, maybe you couldn’t. A gun in your hand would surly help, but if you banned guns, or at a minimum handguns, that criminal wouldn’t have a gun now would he? Yes and no. After all, there are roughly 200 million guns in the US(PDF).

Would all those guns just disappear? Of course not, but they would slowly fade away as those owned by malicious criminals were found, and the only ones which remained from the pre-ban era would be those owned by normal citizens who didn’t want to give their guns up. Now those people would be “criminals”, but as we all know, criminality is a state of mind. Anyhow, people argue that after a period of say 10 years, those guns wouldn’t be in the hands of real criminals. And they’re right.

“Those guns” wouldn’t be a problem, but new guns would. If you need proof of that look at Washington DC.The Washington Times admits that despite the 30 year old DC gun ban which banned handguns outright, and , “… the District had a higher homicide rate last year than any other city in the nation with more than 500,000 residents”, as recorded by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Where do they get their guns? They simply get them from elsewhere.

We have to remember that it is illegal for convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship. It has been this way since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.

However that doesn’t stop felons from getting guns, because the obtained the illegally. Just as illicit drugs are sold, illicit guns are sold. And it’s no like they are a mysterious enigma that are far too difficult get. All you need is a couple hundred bucks and your set.

So when guns are banned, it only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens. Some contest that it would reduce the number of suicides committed by the youth. Again, I argue that what teen doesn’t have access to illegal drugs. While I don’t have any statistics off hand, I’m willing to bet you’d have a hard time finding a suicidal teen who couldn’t get weed if he wanted. And if you have access to weed, you have access to cocaine, steroids, guns, and all other “small” items on the black-market.

Then, the only people who don’t have guns are the people who don’t want to break the law. And then, when Joe Shmoe busts in your door, or breaks open you car window at a red light(and 5 out of 6 people are victims of violent crime(PDF)), he may still have that gun, but you won’t. If you don’t carry a gun, the situation wouldn’t be much different than before guns were banned. But it’s a much different situation for the people who do carry guns for protection, and mind you, not just to protect themselves, but to protect whoever may need protecting. They are the one’s willing to protect themselves and others no matter what the situation.

They are the people who sometimes have somewhat crazy ideas. They are sometimes the gun-nuts who go to the range every week, humorously talk with their buddies about zombie invasions, and hone their skills. Some may talk of dooms day, and they talk of what could be. They may hide guns in their walls, burry them under their driveway, build AK-47s from blank sheets of metal, write books on how to make ammunition out of lipstick lids; waste countless hours on the internet talking about things that will never happen, but they are the people you count on when riots churn over a young man’s death, and the crowds are burning your home, and when we flash back to Kristall Nacht, and Uncle Sam’s no where to be found.

Gun Blog; Part 1

I don’t blame people for being scared of guns. It goes back to everyone’s instinctive fear of death. I admit I’m scared of guns to an extent. Under no conditions do I want to look down a barrel to see a bullet waiting. Guns have the power to kill, to maim, to cause suffering of families and countries, and entire races. It’s only logical to think that it would all end if the guns weren’t there. If that man with the gun, was just a man with an attitude, then everything would be ok… or at least a little bit better.

But it wouldn’t be, because the gun is not the problem. On a similar note, I saw Hotel Rwanda just a week ago, and if you’ve seen it, I’m sure you’ll remember how the Hutus slaughtered nearly one million Tutsi, and this was just nine years ago, in 1994. Yet the worst part was not how soldiers shot innocent children intending to wipe out the next generation, but how they did so with clubs, machetes, or anything else they could scrounge up. Throughout the movie, the UN “peacekeepers” did virtually nothing.

Although it would be great to prevent all disasters, both large scale ones like in the movie, and small scale ones which are commonly seen throughout life, banning guns cannot do that because the evil is still there.

So instincts kick in. Fight or Flight. That’s interesting to me. Evolution has eliminated all the possible choices an animal can make, and left two. Most notably, it eliminated appeasement. Logically it did so because appeasement does not work in the majority of cases.

Getting back to what I was saying, Fight or Flight. The choice is to run, or to confront. Obviously, if you can escape, do it. Confrontation carries the risk of injury and death, and you generally won’t die in a successful escape(If you did then it would be pretty pointless). Yet since you may not have the choice of escaping, people have to be prepared to fight. Again, it is smart to get another person to do the fighting for you. After all you can’t get hurt, but it would naive to rely on another.

Reflecting back to Hotel Rwanda you will remember that UN helped just about the same amount as a lamp post. The same thing happened in Germany too. Utter disbelief wiht regard to the seamingly absurd rumors, disguised the truth from the Jewish populace. After all, not many liked the Jews, but they couldn’t seriously try to kill them all, especially not here, in industrialized Germany…

But it actually happened, and by the time Allied forces toppled the Nazis, 13 million were dead. Great for Mr. 13-million-and-one, but bad for everyone before him, and that’s the lesson we must learn. Help never arrives soon enough. To be protected, you must protect yourself.

In all seriousness, do you know how long it takes for the police to get to your house? The Washington Times reports that it takes an average of 7-8 minutes for metro police to respond to Priority 1 calls, which includes armed-robbery, assault, and shootings. Assuming your able to call 911, would you be able to fend off an armed, prepared attacker for even 5 minutes?

I’ll pick back up tomorrow.

Clarification of NSA activities

Disregarding Bush, and who did what and when(all presidents since Truman have known about NSA), let’s first determine if it is moral.

Obviously, I don’t want to be spied on. Although I have nothing to hide, I still have everything to hide. Of course, I also like living, so spying on our enemies is probably a good idea. Now considering that we have enemies both within and outside of the country, some American citizens, some not, we have to monitor citizens.

The only question is how we go about it. First, we’ve pretty much been monitored for the past half a century one effect or the other. With those decades of monitoring I don’t know of anyone who has been harmed by it.

Could it be right openly allow monitoring? Well, although there may be no, or very few infraction on the part of the NSA thus far, they have also been working in complete secrecy. It’s only fair to assume that caches of information could not be used because of this concealed nature, in effect serving as a check imposed by it’s self. Open acceptance would allow many more opportunities to infringe on our rights and negatively impact our lives.

So the solution is to be hypocritical. Staunchly defend the constitution, prosecute offenders, prevent spying, yet secretly do it all anyway.

Isn’t that what you always thought as a child? That the government had secret agencies with alien crafts, and bases where they tortured terrorists, and giant satellites that could read the notes you pass to your neighbor? That was security. That was freedom.

Wanna a lil’ NSA wire tappin’, ladies?

Quoted from FindLaw.com

Warrantless “National Security” Electronic Surveillance.–In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ”national security cases” electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ”bug” in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ”inherent” presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ”reasonable” search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government’s duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in ”national security cases” than in cases of ”ordinary” crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. The question of the scope of the President’s constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any “United States person” will be overheard.

This obviously pertains to the recent scandal which Democrats are making about the NSA’s eavesdropping on American Citizens who are calling out of the Country or are recieving calls from outside the country.

As FindLaw states the legality of this is still somewhat shady. We know that it is unconstitutional for the Government to tap Domestic-to-Domestic calls without a warrant. We also know that it is constitution for the Government to tap International-International calls without a warrant. We do not however(as far as I know) have a ruling deciding whether Domestic-International/International-Domestic, warrantless wiretaps are protected.

Is it protected? Certianly, the right of that American to be protected under the constitution does not change when conversing with someone who doesn’t have that right. If the .Gov could tap only the international side of the call, that would be constitutional. But they can’t. Now did the President break the law by giving the NSA permission to tap American-Internation/International-American calls for National Security Info? I do not believe so.

Such a search would be unconstitutional, and any information gathered through it would be subject to dismissal, but giving permission is not unconstitutional. The search is. Had he ORDERED his subordinates to do so, that would be unconstitutional. Grounds for impeachment? I wouldn’t go that far. Legally though? Possiblly so.

What would happen if they did such a search? Well, the person being charged would appeal, and the Supreme Court would presumably rule it unconstitutional, throw out the evidence, and try the person again.

Where’s the problem? The NSA(That’s kinda funny; NSA if you recall is also the acronym for No-Strings-Attached. And if they have their way, they’ll have no LEGAL strings attached either!). Anyway, I don’t like the National Security Agency. There’s no need for another agency. The entire government needs some major consolidation.

Anyhow, the republicans shouldn’t have made the NSA and the Democrats shouldn’t have agreed to it. Who’s more at fault? I can’t say. And before you start thinking that the Republicans are taking away all your rights, remember who’s taking away your right to protect yourself.

Robin’ (the) Hood

Remember that judgment that the Supreme Court handed down about the fifth amendment? Yes, the one which ruled that although no person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, the government can take that land for what many consider private use of that “private” use pays more taxes. Let’s talk about that.

First, and I’m talking on moral grounds rather than legal ones, can the government take private land for public use? In an “Anarchist Area”(there’s got to be a real name for that), what someone owns, they own, and they should not be deprived of that under any circumstances. But we’re a Democracy, and in Democracies the will of the people is law. So if the government, made of the people and for the people, should decide to take private property for “public use”, as defined by equal access by all the people, then certainly that would be fair, assuming that the private party was justly compensated.

Now the question becomes; “Does greater tax revenue constitute public use?” The government does have the right to enable it’s fulfillment of duties. It can levy taxes, which enable it to commit actions on the public’s behalf. It can reasonably do many other things, but “Does greater tax revenue constitute public use?” Well, by taking private property to give to another private entity which pays more taxes, the government is enabling a private entity to enable themselves to commit acts on the public’s behalf. Although this adds another chain into the link, it does end with the government committing acts on the public’s behalf.

While you and I may argue that there are too many chains in the link, the Supreme Court of the Unites States(SCOTUS). Ruled it to be public use, and there’s no changing that. Only changing the laws which are already on the books.

Still, even with that conclusion, a great injustice exists. How can the government take the property of a lower income household/entity and give it to a higher income household/entity. Why, that’s… that’s discrimination. And it is. Regrettably that isn’t the end.

15th Amendment Sect. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
So no the constitution does no protect against discrimination based of income. Nor do any of the Civil Rights Acts. They protect against “employment practice [which result] in a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…” So how can we correct the problem if it is completely legal to discriminate based on income? Pass new legislation, preferably a constitutional amendment.

I feel in my uneducated non-legal opinion that such an amendment would have a good fighting shot at passing. It would gain support from the “underprivileged” since they don’t want to be discriminated against for being poor. The wealthy would do so to protect their property.

And if we wanted to, and we would have to in order to get it to pass, we could have it exclude discrimination based on income in situations pertaining to financial aid(scholarships, welfare, etc.). That way the middle and upper classes could be discriminated against for having good jobs.