Newsflash: People surprised that EVERYTHING is monitored

So for the last couple of months the Edward Snowden drama has been like a bad soap opera. Sad, monotonous, and weirdly predictable. I suppose most people were surprised we actually live in a police state, search and seizure protections have been gutted, and forfeiture of "criminal" assets has turned many a police force, now bloated and cash-strapped as the "war" on drugs money and "homeland" security money dries up, into a profit-seeking entity.

What now?

Apparently the response from Lavabit and many others has been just to curl up and go away. The latest to do this is Groklaw - an informative site I have been a huge fan of. "We can't be private in our communications, so we give up." is the summary of most of these sites' goodbye letters. Unlike most sites though, Groklaw watched the watchers. Yes, there are risks involved in watching the surveillance state back. But like all resistance, lawful and otherwise, it's a necessary risk.

Even the Guardian is standing firm - a better summary as to what the combined security apparatchiks in the US and UK are doing: http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/19/british-snoops-to-the-guardian-nice-litt

I know, I know, it's a lot of links to Reason, but then, it's nice when they keep summarizing what it is that I care about.

On Mass Shootings...

In every instance, we failed the victims long before the madman touched a firearm. One cannot rationally argue that these people descended into madness in a vacuum. Someone, somewhere knew something. And did nothing. The "this is not my problem" attitude condemned the victims to their fate.

In short, we are ALL to blame. People here don't ask anyone else if they're okay (incidentally, a study of suicides makes reference to how many suicide notes stated that had just someone even pretended to care, the person would not have killed themselves). People here don't say something when they see something, especially in northern VA - see a toddler making a beeline for the sliding door to run onto a busy street? Not my problem. Someone's car broken down? Honk and swear - make sure to not offer any help. Guy shot and bleeding out next to your gas pump? Step on over, pay no mind.

At the same time the left has closed mental health institutions in the name of humanity, and the right cut access to mental healthcare because they see it as welfare. This abandons the caretakers as well as the mentally ill.

The social contract broke down into utter selfishness. That's what's killing people.

Of course, it's much easier to make the assault weapons ban and magazine size restrictions in effect in CT at the time of the last shooting national. American Exceptionalism: repeating the same thing the states tried on a national level and expecting different results.

November 4: We all lose.

Voter apathy abounds once more, as people get tired of the hyping for the big election. But no matter who wins, the real winner is big government. You have two candidates promising to expand government to do this and do that, and insisting the USA can support its debt load to pay for it. While that may be true, I remain unconvinced that more government is the cure to the ills that ail us.

Let's see:

The War:

It's a war on ideology, not a nation. Can't win a war against an idea. Big Brother rings with "War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength." You have one candidate stating that telling the enemy affected by the idea how long they have to lie low before they leave, and the other telling everyone that the mess made by the USA needs to be fixed as best as possible. I agree with the latter, because while the USA plays world policeman, other countries are tired of cleaning up afterward, especially when a lot of vitriol flowed their way too.

Trade:

One candidate blames all ills of the economy on globalization, and has made NAFTA his sworn enemy. This shows his absolute ignorance about how NAFTA actually works to the benefit of the USA. Let's see - the USA gets access to Canadian labor, and can send its professionals freely to Mexico and Canada to build their own businesses.

In return Mexico gets the "hope" of jobs by those businesses, and gets to sell its oil at cut rate prices. Canada gets to "hope" that US companies buy its products while having to compete for professionals with US companies able to pay more and benefitting from a much lower tax structure. Plus Canada is given the good grace to be able to sell its natural resources at 1980's prices.

The USA gets to ignore rulings from the WTO against duties in contravention of WTO rules. The USA also gets to ignore rulings by the NAFTA panel for duties that violate the trade agreement. And it clogs the same panels trying to eliminate the sanctioned counter-veiling duties.

So in short, the USA wins. It gets cheap Canadian electricity, saving California from Enron. It gets to tax the piss out of Canadian roofing products that should have no tax. It gets cheap Canadian oil, natural gas, and special treatment for environmental regulations in Canada.

So Obama thinks that Canada will decide to be nice, and negotiate an even better deal for the USA?

Try this:

• The USA gets to pay for natural resources at Canadian market prices, in Canadian Dollars.
• Making the NAFTA trade commission rulings binding.

What does this do for US "Joes"?

• Double the price of natural gas.
• 20% increase in the price of lubricants
• 50+% increase in water prices for the western USA (which will be reflected in vegetable prices!)
• Car prices in the USA would increase 10% or more - remember that Canada makes almost half of the parts for cars built in the USA.
  

Should the USA decide to "strong-arm" negotiations (like canceling TN visas):

• Every Canadian NAFTA professional enables the employment of 2 American workers, average.
• Departure of the estimated 20,000 NAFTA professionals would cost the USA another 40,000 jobs at the minimum.
  

A great start to "fixing the economy", Obama. What's next, "Arbeit macht Frei"?

Personal Responsibility:

The clamor for Obama also underlines the willingness of people, in times of uncertainty, to demand they "be taken care of" by government. This is not startling, but certainly eye opening to see how impoverished the "American Spirit of Independence" really is. Under Obama, especially under a Democratic super majority, expect your right to fail to be severely curtailed, and if you do succeed, to be penalized harshly to "spread the wealth around."

If my business makes more than 250,000 per year, it pays more corporate tax. Great - why should I grow beyond this and employ more Americans then? The average 7-11 makes more money than this. Proprietors get doubly screwed.

If I am "rich", and depending on which debate you listen to the Democrat's definition ranges from "over $40,000 per year" to "over 150,000 per year depending on their audience, you get to pay more tax too. In reality this amounts to little more than what the Bush tax cut took out, but you're approaching Canada's rate, and Canada gets cheap health care.

At least Obama can get away with mentioning that there is a problem in some minority communities of motherhood out of wedlock feeding the cycle of crime. I applaud at least that shred of remaining personal responsibility. It beats "lebensborn" camps any day.

Conclusion:

We're screwed on the NAFTA issue alone. And don't get me started on baseless measures like gun control - it's really helped keep the murder rate in Chicago, DC, LA, and Oakland down, hasn't it? "Common Sense" is about as malleable as the term "rich." If you know nothing but are asked to opine on something, what makes sense to you won't make much sense to someone who knows anything about the subject.

The return of the "fairness doctrine" translates to "we don't appreciate the fact that people enjoy listening to foaming-at-the-mouth neocons ranting on air" so we'll make stations carrying them put on stuff that advertisers won't pay for because nobody wants to hear it if they want to make money. Great. Real fair, that is.

McCain isn't much better, but at least electing him would keep the American tradition of a divided government keeping insanity and change in check.

Blogger questioned by the FBI for online comments

This blogger was invited down to the local FBI office for his trip through the wringer for posting criticisms of laws, the FBI, and homeland security. Oddly enough, he had the guts to post about that too.

Apparently they censored his blog first though.

Nice!

More on Possible Outcomes on the Second Amendment

Well, there could be another outcome of the US Supreme Court Case. It's highly unlikely, but considering that the purpose of the second amendment is:

1. Protect the People from the Government
2. Protect the United States from foreign subjugation

One could reasonably expect that the founding fathers deemed that the arms to be kept by the people, by their nature, need to be of military relevance to be useful in a militia. This is also what I typically say to those that the second amendment counts only for arms of the time - i.e. Muskets. Anyone who has studied history would know that anyone shot with a black powder firearm is in a world of hurt too, and the wounds they leave significantly less humane than a modern firearm.

If this is the outcome, we could see the legal definition of "machine guns" and "assault weapons" being made completely legal, and the remainder of the firearms be deemed "not militarily relevant" and thus subject to regulation. The USA would turn to Switzerland...

"Sorry son, you can't buy that little pistol. But we have this M249 machine gun on special..."

Supreme Court to hear on 2nd Amendment

Well, this ought to be interesting. We have DC on one side, saying the right to have a firearm is not being infringed if it's denied outright, and a security guard denied a permit to have a firearm in the district on the other side, all of this backed by the Cato institute.

The NRA-ILA was against this, since, well, their reason for existing was being threatened.

So what happens if firearms ownership is ruled a collective right?

Good question. At worst, the new democratic president would order all firearms in private hands taken away, and the USA would be just like the UK, with its skyrocketing violent crime rates. Sure, fewer people die there, but a lot more get curbstomped by drunk thugs.

What happens if this becomes a clear individual right?

Well, if the National Firearms Act gets thrown out entirely, then even convicted felons could legally purchase any firearm available, although many states have clear rules that prevent that, and those laws would not be invalidated.

Most likely there would be a backlash with the new presidency, and likely new, more restrictive laws would be enacted. Like California, where you pretty much have to be shot before you can shoot in self defense (without being charged with a felony), this would likely be the national case. The revenge of the liberals would be upon us, and self defense be made illegal.

I stuck my neck out and posted the following on the Washington Post article and editorial discussing this:

To the "government will help us" people: Specifically in the District, the right to police protection is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT. This means, according to case law, that you have to recourse if the cops don't show up when a robber wants your wallet, which you gave him, and now wants your daughter. Remember Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981).

"Children Die" because of guns. They sure do, but this is lack of parental guidance, and as much the fault of the parents. Teaching your children to not touch, and get an adult is simple, yet most people abrogate their responsibility to their children to the state.

"The streets will run with blood":
Well, Virginia's crime rate has dropped, as have those states with "shall issue" concealed carry laws. These laws state that you need not have a "valid reason" (like being a friend of the sherrif, as is the case in LA county, California) to apply for a permit. The only exception is Philadelphia, but this is clearly a case of illegal guns, and not legally purchased ones. VA Tech rampager Cho purchased his pistols legally because laws were not being followed. Note also, that you're statistically less likely to be shot by someone with a concealed pistol/weapon permit than you are by a cop - CHP holders have had more stringent background investigations done than most police, all the way to the FBI level. They are the least likely to commit a felony, ever, even lower than police.

"You're more likely to be shot with a gun in your home. This study proves it." You're right, but if you look into the statistics, they include guns brought into the home by the assailants, and also count criminal on criminal activity, like dope houses getting shot up. Statistics are meaningless unless one looks at the real numbers in question.

Now, I am all for gun control, but control the illegal stuff first before controlling what I have. I have not broken any laws, and restricting me as if I would, could, or will break the law breaks my ... what is it, 4th amendment right to due process?

How 9/11 Changed Me

As I mull over the moments that I had at a backup site to the stock exchange, hastily evacuated out of fear that the attackers would also hit financial backup sites of the USA, coming home to see the smoke from the Pentagon from my balcony, and accommodating those were stuck in the district after a complete lock-down, I find it interesting on how the news networks harp on and on about patriotic this and patriotic that. NBC had a poll saying that over 60% of people responding felt that government was not doing enough to combat terror.

My point exactly. You may as well say that we haven't sacrificed enough of our freedoms for our security.

How stupid, ignorant, and dangerous. Turning this country into a police state is what the terrorists wanted, and they have succeeded. Ask some honest questions:

• How many terrorists were apprehended under the "Patriot" act? Convicted, even under "judge, this man is guilty for reasons we cannot tell you, so please issue the verdict" kangaroo courts?
  
  None.
  
  
• How many terrorists were stopped under laws that existed prior to 9/11, convicted in open courts, under the rule of law we so love to espouse?
  
  More than zero. Less than five.
  
  
• How many cameras did it take in the UK to stop determined terrorists? How many wiretap laws?
  
  Not enough.
  
  

We, the people, have handed victory to the terrorists and emboldened our enemies, because we will not stand for our rights.

Take our guns. Check, new assault weapons bans in progress will ensure terrorists and predators are better armed than we are (see the events in England as a reminder).

Take our right to self defense (c.f. California's escalation in equal measure statute vs. Castle statute of Virginia). In progress - California, Maryland, and the northeastern states leading the way. Therefore, we're absolved of personal responsibility, but so are the cops, as proven in court in DC that they have no responsibility to protect you.

Take our right to a fair trial. Check. Secret letters in secret courts are not enough here - clearly we need more national security letters.

Take our right to due process of any measure. Check. Like Australia, we gladly allow guilt by association on secret facts, as long as it isn't us.

Oh wait, I violated a presidential order, as open discourse can be construed as "undermining Iraq reconstruction efforts." F*** free speech.

My friend's bagpipe playing a sorrowful Piobaireachd in memoriam from noon until midnight, on the hour that day was for the people. And the loss of our freedom to come.

Yes, I feel safer already. Don't you?

Terror, Freedom, Sheeple, and the Will to Lose

Just when you thought it's not going to get any worse:

• Airline passenger data is being shared between the EU and the USA. Well, only one way - the USA gets the data.
  
• Any name can appear on a "terror watch list" with no due process, and no process to get that name off
• More and more cameras record crime and terrorism - have they ever stopped something?
• Renewal of the warrantless wire tap measures in the US Government, bypassing the secret FISA court system (which, by the way, has a 24 hour turnaround time and has never turned down a request)

All for your security?

Let me tell you, the terrorists are winning.

Why? Because they want to oppress us. They do no care who does - if we do it to ourselves, then fine.

It is the fear of the conservatives, and the liberal nanny-staters that is allowing western governments unprecedented powers with no checks or balances. The evolution of technology has made this even simpler for the governments to go on fishing expeditions.

And you thought it was all about shooting them in the "other front" in the War on Terror.

So in fear, we have thrown out the rule of law, and its basic tenet: You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable does not mean some bureaucrat thinks you're guilty. I means that people must be convinced by being presented with facts that you are.

It won't happen to you? Think again.

Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor accused by Australia as a "collaborator" in the UK terror plots, had charges against him dropped by the police for lack of evidence. What happens? Work visa revoked, medical license revoked. No court hearing. Reason given: "character grounds" (link), because someone involved was his second cousin. No due process.

Don't have an islamic name? Think that will save you? Some poor 7-year old boy named Michael Martin is on the no-fly list, and can't get off. (Washington Post) Pronounced guilty by the state, again with no due process.

Who is the original Michael Martin the state thinks we need to be protected from? The atheist philosopher who debates the existence of God? Sounds good to me - off to Guantanamo with him. (Goooogle)

Ever seen a psychiatrist or psychologist? Ever had a prescription for anti-depressants? HR 2640 will make everyone who ever had any sort of treatment suspect. No, not deemed "mentally defective by a judge" per the BATF form (whatever that means), but simply flagged as a "May not own" in the NICS database. Depressed? You just gave up your right to an effective form of self defense, not to mention a great time sporting. Veteran? Immediately suspect, although veterans have a clause and a process to get removed from the list - go beg in front of a desk jockey, I wish you luck. No due process.

Why are we doing this? Is it really too much Bourne Supremacy or 24 where they always only get the call of the bad guy?

The sheer idiocy of it.

And in the meantime, the democrats in Congress do what they do best: have hearings. Clearly, the assault weapons ban needs to be re-instated too - look and how many AR-15's and AK-47's have been used in crimes in the recent years (within US borders! Not Sudan!)