Other services which have had an external audit, based on the same criteria as the FTC-commissioned audit of Google, of their privacy practices which has been publicly released with no redactions? And, if not, how are they relevant to the immediate story?
How about a service which doesn't collect the data in the first place, so that an audit is redundant?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..
I disagree. I think the future should rightly belong to those who would say bad things about Islam and the Prophet. And/or about Christ, Confucius, Buddha, Cthulhu, Satan, Jews, Christians, Hindis, etc etc etc.
The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword. Nobody has a right to not be offended. Nearly anything one says or does could be offensive to someone somewhere.
Violence is a completely different thing than speech, and should not be tolerated among civilized people.
A town square is better filled with the noise and chaos of soapboxes and bullhorns than with the silence of blood and bodies.
Not sure if you noticed (try browsing with adblockplus and click "Open Blockable Items"), but Google is almost everywhere on the web in one way or another.
Whether it be via doubleclick, google analytics, or AJAX hosting, Google likely tracks about 90% of the sites you visit, and that's not counting your email to friends on gmail or the phone calls you unknowingly make to or receive from Google Voice subscribers. That's also not counting some of the services (like Chrome without privacy tweaks) that send almost 100% of the pages you visit in order to check for fraud or whatever.
To even attempt to avoid them, you can try using firefox with adblockplus with the EasyPrivacy+EasyList settings, but you still have to tweak it a little (like blocking google analytics and unchecking "Allow some non-intrusive advertising").
I agree, it does take some work. I have a number of privacy/security related extensions installed, use FreeBSD, Tor for many things, changed browser settings in the "about:config", etc.
It all depends on how much effort it's worth to you to not be digitally anal-probed.
For one example of a free service that emphasizes privacy and anonymity.
Deprive both Google and the government of the very data they are collecting that gives them more power. Well, at least until they make it illegal to not reveal data.
You expect a drone to fly through a hurricane? That's not easy even for large multiple-engine jet aircraft with skilled and experienced pilots in the cockpit.
Lots of guys are also building and selling other musical electronics gadgets that are not government-tested or approved. Guitar effects pedals spring to mind.
It just removes a layer of legal protection for the maker/seller from civil liability for any harm caused in part or whole by their products.
You can even fabricate your own semi-auto firearms in a home machine shop without any license or permit necessary if you don't sell or transfer ownership of the firearms to anyone else, and as long as the firearm is otherwise legal for you to own where you are.
Robbing peter to pay paul does not result in lower education costs.
But it makes things *appear* that way long enough to get (re)elected, especially when Peter hasn't been born yet and can't voice objections and Paul isn't bright enough or doesn't care enough to understand why any of it even matters or why they should care.
A little too rich for my blood. Someone come up with a DIY version and put it on kickstarter. As long as you have put an Arduino in there it'll sell like hotcakes.
Well, something like the Qassam rocket is DIY-able, but it's unguided, wildly inaccurate, and not good for much but terrorist attacks against a population center.
Probably the best bet would be a RC quad-rotor carrying Semtex for a practical DIY guided weapon. Range, speed, and altitude would be limited, ditto the practical carrying capacity.
Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity. The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment. The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.
Except that the SC doesn't always "get it right".
Like the Kelo case as the most recent example.
They just shift the interpretation slightly, and suddenly there's a whole new paradigm to the law.
We are following Venezuela's example. The US is in a different path. Both paths lead to poverty and tirany, that's right, but they are different.
The path for the US may be different, but the ultimate destination is nearly identical. Here in the US, they know it will take collapsing the economy and creating widespread social collapse, food shortages, and chaos before US citizens will cry out for and accept a strongman to save them from the anarchy, starvation, and chaos.
The end will be the same. Tyranny and despotism, possibly a semi-fascist/socialist/communist mashup in the US with some of the worst features of each. I just hope that in the desperate months and years ahead, US citizens resist the siren-call of the "quick fixes" in exchange for "temporary control" that will be offered by those wanting to use the opportunity to permanently seize total power. Never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Brasil has gone from industrial and technological revolution to leftist, entitlement empire in just a few short years.
Don't be too hard on Brazil.
After all, they're just following the US's example in a race to the bottom. It's just taking the US longer because we had more freedom and wealth to start with before the Left gained control.
Winston Churchill had some relevant thoughts here:
(Note that "Liberalism" as Churchill uses it here more closely resembles US conservative (small-"C") views.)
Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals.
And further:
Ah, gentlemen, I don't want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way - "You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite." [Cheers.]
So, in short, there are other more important things to worry about...
Only because they're screwing up much bigger things in addition to things like this, raising the amount and scope of total overall government 'fail' to ever-higher levels.
How is it we made it OK for 200-plus years and became a superpower with the most individual freedom and highest standard of living for the average citizen with the lowest level of starvation and poverty the world had ever seen with only a fraction of the government size, power, and involvement in our everyday lives and costs to the taxpayers we suffer today?
We keep seeing the same things get worse and have kept doing basically the same things to fix them for about a half-century now; expand entitlements and government scope and power, and reduce individual freedom and choices while taking away ever more wealth to run the government.
At what point should we do something different? Have things not gotten bad enough yet? Should we double- or triple-down on what we've been trying for ~50 years?
Then make them care. You've got town/city meetings, don't you? Make it an issue.
Good in theory, but in reality, the city/county/state and citizens are more concerned about keeping police and fire personnel on the job as the city/county/state struggles to pay soaring labor union pension, wage, and benefit costs while revenues keep shrinking due to unemployment and businesses leaving or closing their doors.
They can't have it all, they need to decide what they are going to enforce.
Resolving conflicts in the laws and regulations is not part of their job. They just write up the violations and collect the revenue, and are promoted and given pay raises based on how well they do that and how much revenue they bring in. The politicians don't care because it's generally not a deciding factor in their (re)election.
Significantly LESS people smoke than did 50 years ago. So YES you are right, taxing tobacco has a positive effect on reducing smoking and therefore the argument of taxation as a behavior modifier is once again confirmed. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be due in any significant way to health education resulting in people choosing not to smoke, as we all know people are dumb cattle whose freedom of choice must be limited and controlled. All the best societies treat their citizens like congenital idiots that would drown in a rainstorm if government weren't there to save them from themselves by limiting their choices, right?
Thank $DEITY the Statists are here to save us with nanny-government to limit our choices, as modern humans were almost extinct after only a a couple hundred thousand years before they came along to "protect" us from ourselves. Think of the children! And the terrists! And the planet!/sarc
Pretty sure the requirement for CFLs/LEDs etc trumps the requirement for the dimmer.
Ha!
I see you have little or no experience with local building code enforcement weenies. In many cases they care more about it simply being an opportunity to write up a violation and levy fines for non-compliance. Far too often it's more about exercising their power and their little bureaucratic fiefdoms and revenue generation. If something like you suggest is not specifically spelled out in the regs, it doesn't exist.
I see that you view things from a more or less humanist viewpoint and tend to dismiss religion and spirituality. I'm not attacking you here, just noting an observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case...
My view is that men need a general common sense and common spiritual structure of morality over and above any laws any government may pass in order for a free and open society to remain stable, as a need for some sense of spirituality is part of basic human nature and inescapable in a general sense, as people make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples.
If there is no common spirituality and spiritual bonding between the individuals in a society and a general sense of being part of something larger than themselves, society-wide chaos, violence, and cruelty will eventually ensue, leading to collapse.
Both intellect and emotion, head and heart, must be invested in the society as a whole as well as in each of the other individuals in that society for there to be a generally benevolent and stable.society where cruelty, abuse, and unfairness are minimal. That is why ideologies that ignore or suppress spiritual/moral/religious systems and beliefs outside of those put forward by government usually fall into despotism/totalitarianism and eventually chaos and collapse.
We view things from different perspectives and worldviews. But that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Neither of us are bad people. We can each have our own views in a free and open society without animosity or hatred. Please accept my apologies for any actual or implied slights against you on my part. I am...enthusiastic...on the subject of individual freedom.
Strat
P.S. - The whole "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" isn't propaganda at all. A Marine tried to explain it to me and some other friends one evening as we were sitting around talking. He said the best he could explain it was as an acknowledgement of the fact that the process of becoming a Marine changes a person in fundamental ways and engenders a strong sense of spiritual brotherhood with and faith in the others who share these common experiences and resulting character traits and codes of morality and behavior that come forth especially under extraordinary stress and danger. These changes to the self are for life, so one is, in all the ways that matter, always a Marine.
This was introduced at some auto & tire trade shows several years ago...
No it wasn't.
It was introduced in 1993.
It was in the movie "Demolition Man" during the big car chase scene with the Olds 442 pursuing the future-current car.:D
Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) is driving one of the "modern" cars of the period when John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) shoots Phoenix' tire. Phoenix voice-commands the car to "Auto-Inflate" which it does, frustrating Spartan.
Couldn't find a good video clip with a brief search that wasn't a music mash-up over most or all of the dialog.
My understanding is that if you don't comply with an officer, by for example not putting your hands behind your back, not stepping away from a vehicle when ordered, or in this case dropping your weight, then you are resisting.
Your understanding is incorrect. Not taking a proactive part in cooperating with your arrest is not resisting. At least, not according to my nephew, a senior police detective (who is also a first Iraq war vet).
He was an ex-Marine posting anti-government fringe conspiracy theories, talking about a coming revolution, and the lyrics were "Sharpen up my axe: I'm here to sever heads".
First, there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine. You become either a dead Marine, or a retired or no longer active-duty Marine. Being a Marine is forever. Again, a judge confirmed that Raub's posts did not justify arrest or detention, and in fact the judge strongly chastised the government for violating his basic rights. If neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the NBPP have the right to spew their hatred and vitriol, Raub certainly has a right to his speech.
Second, again, what he posted did not, according to a judge, rise to the level of being an arrestable act. Otherwise, they could have had a warrant. They didn't have a warrant precisely because they knew a judge would not sign off on one on the basis of the evidence they had. Whether or not he was a Marine does not enter into it, does not lower the standards required for arrest/detention. As the judge pointed out if you read his findings.
I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.
Maybe not, but I can understand the difficult position the government is in. These are obvious warning signs, and when somebody like this goes off you'll always have the media and victims complaining why the government ignored them.
At the most, all they warrant is having a friendly non-confrontational talk. Nobody else, not his family nor his friends, who were all aware of his FB posts, had any worries or concerns about his mental health or that he might be a danger to himself or others. That was not what worried DHS, which is where the impetus for the actions taken against Ruab originated. His political beliefs, and the fact he was stating them publicly, was what worried DHS. There is another definition of the three letters of "DHS" used behind closed doors: "Domestic-Hostile Suppression".
Typically, LE will make contact with friends, neighbors, and/or family to help in ascertaining these things before taking any actions like arrest/detention. This never happened in Raub's case. Playing CYA with the media is not a valid reason to violate a man's basic rights which is what a judge determined happened in this case (the rights violations).
Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?
Funny that you're talking about boot-licking while appealing to the ultimate authority figure, "God". Rights come from the collective and individuals. Anybody with a knowledge of history and societies around the world could figure that out.
This is incorrect and the basis for my saying you need a course in civics, and if I may add, a course on the Constitution as well.
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Benjamin Franklin
"Raub said he talked with two FBI agents from inside his door for about 10 to 15 minutes."
Yeah, they wanted him to to allow them to search his home without a warrant.
As for "bum-rushing", that was after he started resisted arrest:
No, the "bum-rush" was the cops/FBI surrounding him, actually body-to-body close as soon as he complied with them asking him to step off his porch to "talk".
"I realized that they weren't going to read me my rights and they weren't arresting me, so I basically just decided just to make it more difficult for them take me. I dropped my body weight -- and I don't think one of the Chesterfield policeman liked it very much, so he tackled me into the fence." "
At that point, he knew what was coming. Anyone would. I don't blame him. How is going limp "resisting"? That's the opposite of resisting. He just wasn't "assisting" them to violate his rights. Or is not assisting in the violation of one's rights now considered "resisting"?
do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist
Now this is getting stupid. Don't you think a psychiatric evaluation would include talking to a psychiatrist?
I agree it's stupid. On your part. You don't just haul someone off without some sort of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat. And no, the FB postings were not sufficient, as the judge pointed out. The "evaluation" was to be conducted during 30 days in a mental ward, *after* they illegally abducted him, no evaluations by a doctor or other legitimate mental health authority were conducted before and used as a reason to detain him. That all came after the fact.
That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.
Except for all the countless looney-tunes sites parroting the same garbage, minus the ex-Marine talking about severed heads and revolutions. Be honest and stop with the one-sided nonsense.
The only "nonsense" here is from you and the government. He made no specific or direct threats, again according to a judge, and the judge even strongly chastised the actions against Raub by the government.
I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.
"First they came for..."
I won't let them get down to me before I speak out.
Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?
If you don't understand your rights, where they come from, and the principles and Rule of Law upon which this country was built and became the freest nation to ever exist, please refrain from voting or expressing other unqualified and ignorant opinions until you've done your civics homework.
So you've got some guy who is an ex-Marine parroting fringe conspiracy theories, and saying stuff like "Just know that a new beginning is coming." and "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads." If this guy had gone postal, you'd have the media questioning why the authorities ignored the obvious warning signs.
If he was only detained for conspiracy theories, that would be one thing, but that just isn't the case.
Hey, there are things they could have done besides bum-rushing the guy and throwing him in a mental ward.
You know, like talk to the guy. Ask him; "Gee, we're a little worried here, help us out, what did you mean by this? We're just concerned for your own and other people's safety."
That's just it. Any reasonable people whose only goal was his and the public's safety would have had a talk with him, his family, etc before tossing him straight into the looney bin, do not pass "Go", do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist, or make any other attempt to ascertain his state of mind.
That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.
I had a neighbor once that worried some people with bizarre behavior. They sent a pair of social workers with a mental health background to talk to the guy, with a black-and-white parked down the street observing. They talked to the guy for about a half-hour, turned around, and left. He was not a danger to himself or others. The situation wasn't escalated, he wasn't provoked or alarmed. I watched him try to give the social workers tomatoes from his garden.
*That's* how it's done when the primary goal is not to put a boot on someone's neck for expressing their opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Other services which have had an external audit, based on the same criteria as the FTC-commissioned audit of Google, of their privacy practices which has been publicly released with no redactions? And, if not, how are they relevant to the immediate story?
How about a service which doesn't collect the data in the first place, so that an audit is redundant?
https://www.ixquick.com/eng/press/ixquick-privacy-gets-better.html
If that's not relevant and on-topic then not much is.
Strat
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied..
I disagree. I think the future should rightly belong to those who would say bad things about Islam and the Prophet. And/or about Christ, Confucius, Buddha, Cthulhu, Satan, Jews, Christians, Hindis, etc etc etc.
The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword. Nobody has a right to not be offended. Nearly anything one says or does could be offensive to someone somewhere.
Violence is a completely different thing than speech, and should not be tolerated among civilized people.
A town square is better filled with the noise and chaos of soapboxes and bullhorns than with the silence of blood and bodies.
Strat
(Score:0, Troll)
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
-- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly
How is a simple quote from the POTUS speaking to the UN, with no other comment or text, a "Troll" post?
Seems like some people want that quote buried. I wonder why they don't want people in general to be aware of it?
Strat
Not sure if you noticed (try browsing with adblockplus and click "Open Blockable Items"), but Google is almost everywhere on the web in one way or another.
Whether it be via doubleclick, google analytics, or AJAX hosting, Google likely tracks about 90% of the sites you visit, and that's not counting your email to friends on gmail or the phone calls you unknowingly make to or receive from Google Voice subscribers. That's also not counting some of the services (like Chrome without privacy tweaks) that send almost 100% of the pages you visit in order to check for fraud or whatever.
To even attempt to avoid them, you can try using firefox with adblockplus with the EasyPrivacy+EasyList settings, but you still have to tweak it a little (like blocking google analytics and unchecking "Allow some non-intrusive advertising").
I agree, it does take some work. I have a number of privacy/security related extensions installed, use FreeBSD, Tor for many things, changed browser settings in the "about:config", etc.
It all depends on how much effort it's worth to you to not be digitally anal-probed.
Strat
...We can safely assume the blacked-out information would hurt both the government and Google to varying degrees. So now what to do about it?
IMHO, the most effective personal strategy is to simply avoid using Google search and associated services. There ARE other services out there.
https://www.ixquick.com/
For one example of a free service that emphasizes privacy and anonymity.
Deprive both Google and the government of the very data they are collecting that gives them more power. Well, at least until they make it illegal to not reveal data.
Strat
Drones?
You expect a drone to fly through a hurricane? That's not easy even for large multiple-engine jet aircraft with skilled and experienced pilots in the cockpit.
Strat
New electronic devices need to be tested before they can be sold...
Tell that to the guys building and selling "boutique" vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers. Two examples:
http://www.grangeramp.com/
http://www.firebellyamps.com/
Lots of guys are also building and selling other musical electronics gadgets that are not government-tested or approved. Guitar effects pedals spring to mind.
It just removes a layer of legal protection for the maker/seller from civil liability for any harm caused in part or whole by their products.
You can even fabricate your own semi-auto firearms in a home machine shop without any license or permit necessary if you don't sell or transfer ownership of the firearms to anyone else, and as long as the firearm is otherwise legal for you to own where you are.
Strat
But it makes things *appear* that way long enough to get (re)elected, especially when Peter hasn't been born yet and can't voice objections and Paul isn't bright enough or doesn't care enough to understand why any of it even matters or why they should care.
Strat
You're all over thinking this. A good deer rifle will be more than good enough. Hi powered and accurate. Vastly cheaper than the drones.
The problem is that neither a quadrotor nor a hunting rifle are effective at 5,000-7,000 feet altitude up to 10,000-17,000 feet altitude.
You need something like these at the very least:
http://ww2total.com/worldwar2/weapons-WW2/artillery/self-propelled-guns/allies/usa/M16_AA-Halftruck/M16_AA-Halftrack-en.htm
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Artillery/Guns/German/Flak-38/20mm-Flakvierling-38.htm
Or like this:
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Artillery/Guns/German/Flak-36/88mm-Flak.htm
However, one could encounter slight delays regarding permits to have one parked beside your bass boat trailer.
Strat
Well, something like the Qassam rocket is DIY-able, but it's unguided, wildly inaccurate, and not good for much but terrorist attacks against a population center.
Probably the best bet would be a RC quad-rotor carrying Semtex for a practical DIY guided weapon. Range, speed, and altitude would be limited, ditto the practical carrying capacity.
Strat
But my overseas markets will more than make up for the small amount of business I could hope to see from DHS.
In that case, you may well get the business from DHS.
It just won't be quite how you were hoping.
Strat
Yes, we'll all lose, but the problem isn't nudity.
The problem is that the TSA acts as an extended arm of the DHS, and as such are constitutionally bound to the 4th amendment.
The border search exception does not apply to domestic flights, and the constitution always trumps federal law in the view of the Supreme Court, should there be discrepancies.
Except that the SC doesn't always "get it right".
Like the Kelo case as the most recent example.
They just shift the interpretation slightly, and suddenly there's a whole new paradigm to the law.
Strat
We are following Venezuela's example. The US is in a different path. Both paths lead to poverty and tirany, that's right, but they are different.
The path for the US may be different, but the ultimate destination is nearly identical. Here in the US, they know it will take collapsing the economy and creating widespread social collapse, food shortages, and chaos before US citizens will cry out for and accept a strongman to save them from the anarchy, starvation, and chaos.
The end will be the same. Tyranny and despotism, possibly a semi-fascist/socialist/communist mashup in the US with some of the worst features of each. I just hope that in the desperate months and years ahead, US citizens resist the siren-call of the "quick fixes" in exchange for "temporary control" that will be offered by those wanting to use the opportunity to permanently seize total power. Never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Strat
Brasil has gone from industrial and technological revolution to leftist, entitlement empire in just a few short years.
Don't be too hard on Brazil.
After all, they're just following the US's example in a race to the bottom. It's just taking the US longer because we had more freedom and wealth to start with before the Left gained control.
Winston Churchill had some relevant thoughts here:
(Note that "Liberalism" as Churchill uses it here more closely resembles US conservative (small-"C") views.)
Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals.
And further:
Ah, gentlemen, I don't want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way - "You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite." [Cheers.]
Strat
Perhaps you've heard of this company called Apple?
I think they make computers, or something.
Lieutenant Dan got us invested in this fruit company or somethin'.
Then he says we don't have to worry about money no mo'.
That's good.
One less thing.
Strat
So, in short, there are other more important things to worry about...
Only because they're screwing up much bigger things in addition to things like this, raising the amount and scope of total overall government 'fail' to ever-higher levels.
How is it we made it OK for 200-plus years and became a superpower with the most individual freedom and highest standard of living for the average citizen with the lowest level of starvation and poverty the world had ever seen with only a fraction of the government size, power, and involvement in our everyday lives and costs to the taxpayers we suffer today?
We keep seeing the same things get worse and have kept doing basically the same things to fix them for about a half-century now; expand entitlements and government scope and power, and reduce individual freedom and choices while taking away ever more wealth to run the government.
At what point should we do something different? Have things not gotten bad enough yet? Should we double- or triple-down on what we've been trying for ~50 years?
The popular definition of insanity comes to mind.
Strat
Then make them care. You've got town/city meetings, don't you? Make it an issue.
Good in theory, but in reality, the city/county/state and citizens are more concerned about keeping police and fire personnel on the job as the city/county/state struggles to pay soaring labor union pension, wage, and benefit costs while revenues keep shrinking due to unemployment and businesses leaving or closing their doors.
Strat
Then you ask them what they want you to do.
Easy. Pay the fines.
They can't have it all, they need to decide what they are going to enforce.
Resolving conflicts in the laws and regulations is not part of their job. They just write up the violations and collect the revenue, and are promoted and given pay raises based on how well they do that and how much revenue they bring in. The politicians don't care because it's generally not a deciding factor in their (re)election.
Strat
Significantly LESS people smoke than did 50 years ago. So YES you are right, taxing tobacco has a positive effect on reducing smoking and therefore the argument of taxation as a behavior modifier is once again confirmed. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be due in any significant way to health education resulting in people choosing not to smoke, as we all know people are dumb cattle whose freedom of choice must be limited and controlled. All the best societies treat their citizens like congenital idiots that would drown in a rainstorm if government weren't there to save them from themselves by limiting their choices, right?
Thank $DEITY the Statists are here to save us with nanny-government to limit our choices, as modern humans were almost extinct after only a a couple hundred thousand years before they came along to "protect" us from ourselves. Think of the children! And the terrists! And the planet! /sarc
Strat
Pretty sure the requirement for CFLs/LEDs etc trumps the requirement for the dimmer.
Ha!
I see you have little or no experience with local building code enforcement weenies. In many cases they care more about it simply being an opportunity to write up a violation and levy fines for non-compliance. Far too often it's more about exercising their power and their little bureaucratic fiefdoms and revenue generation. If something like you suggest is not specifically spelled out in the regs, it doesn't exist.
Strat
I see that you view things from a more or less humanist viewpoint and tend to dismiss religion and spirituality. I'm not attacking you here, just noting an observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case...
My view is that men need a general common sense and common spiritual structure of morality over and above any laws any government may pass in order for a free and open society to remain stable, as a need for some sense of spirituality is part of basic human nature and inescapable in a general sense, as people make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples.
If there is no common spirituality and spiritual bonding between the individuals in a society and a general sense of being part of something larger than themselves, society-wide chaos, violence, and cruelty will eventually ensue, leading to collapse.
Both intellect and emotion, head and heart, must be invested in the society as a whole as well as in each of the other individuals in that society for there to be a generally benevolent and stable.society where cruelty, abuse, and unfairness are minimal. That is why ideologies that ignore or suppress spiritual/moral/religious systems and beliefs outside of those put forward by government usually fall into despotism/totalitarianism and eventually chaos and collapse.
We view things from different perspectives and worldviews. But that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Neither of us are bad people. We can each have our own views in a free and open society without animosity or hatred. Please accept my apologies for any actual or implied slights against you on my part. I am...enthusiastic...on the subject of individual freedom.
Strat
P.S. - The whole "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" isn't propaganda at all. A Marine tried to explain it to me and some other friends one evening as we were sitting around talking. He said the best he could explain it was as an acknowledgement of the fact that the process of becoming a Marine changes a person in fundamental ways and engenders a strong sense of spiritual brotherhood with and faith in the others who share these common experiences and resulting character traits and codes of morality and behavior that come forth especially under extraordinary stress and danger. These changes to the self are for life, so one is, in all the ways that matter, always a Marine.
This was introduced at some auto & tire trade shows several years ago...
No it wasn't.
It was introduced in 1993.
It was in the movie "Demolition Man" during the big car chase scene with the Olds 442 pursuing the future-current car. :D
Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) is driving one of the "modern" cars of the period when John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) shoots Phoenix' tire. Phoenix voice-commands the car to "Auto-Inflate" which it does, frustrating Spartan.
Couldn't find a good video clip with a brief search that wasn't a music mash-up over most or all of the dialog.
Strat
My understanding is that if you don't comply with an officer, by for example not putting your hands behind your back, not stepping away from a vehicle when ordered, or in this case dropping your weight, then you are resisting.
Your understanding is incorrect. Not taking a proactive part in cooperating with your arrest is not resisting. At least, not according to my nephew, a senior police detective (who is also a first Iraq war vet).
He was an ex-Marine posting anti-government fringe conspiracy theories, talking about a coming revolution, and the lyrics were "Sharpen up my axe: I'm here to sever heads".
First, there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine. You become either a dead Marine, or a retired or no longer active-duty Marine. Being a Marine is forever. Again, a judge confirmed that Raub's posts did not justify arrest or detention, and in fact the judge strongly chastised the government for violating his basic rights. If neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the NBPP have the right to spew their hatred and vitriol, Raub certainly has a right to his speech.
Second, again, what he posted did not, according to a judge, rise to the level of being an arrestable act. Otherwise, they could have had a warrant. They didn't have a warrant precisely because they knew a judge would not sign off on one on the basis of the evidence they had. Whether or not he was a Marine does not enter into it, does not lower the standards required for arrest/detention. As the judge pointed out if you read his findings.
At the most, all they warrant is having a friendly non-confrontational talk. Nobody else, not his family nor his friends, who were all aware of his FB posts, had any worries or concerns about his mental health or that he might be a danger to himself or others. That was not what worried DHS, which is where the impetus for the actions taken against Ruab originated. His political beliefs, and the fact he was stating them publicly, was what worried DHS. There is another definition of the three letters of "DHS" used behind closed doors: "Domestic-Hostile Suppression".
Typically, LE will make contact with friends, neighbors, and/or family to help in ascertaining these things before taking any actions like arrest/detention. This never happened in Raub's case. Playing CYA with the media is not a valid reason to violate a man's basic rights which is what a judge determined happened in this case (the rights violations).
This is incorrect and the basis for my saying you need a course in civics, and if I may add, a course on the Constitution as well.
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Benjamin Franklin
"The righ
"Raub said he talked with two FBI agents from inside his door for about 10 to 15 minutes."
Yeah, they wanted him to to allow them to search his home without a warrant.
As for "bum-rushing", that was after he started resisted arrest:
No, the "bum-rush" was the cops/FBI surrounding him, actually body-to-body close as soon as he complied with them asking him to step off his porch to "talk".
"I realized that they weren't going to read me my rights and they weren't arresting me, so I basically just decided just to make it more difficult for them take me. I dropped my body weight -- and I don't think one of the Chesterfield policeman liked it very much, so he tackled me into the fence." "
At that point, he knew what was coming. Anyone would. I don't blame him. How is going limp "resisting"? That's the opposite of resisting. He just wasn't "assisting" them to violate his rights. Or is not assisting in the violation of one's rights now considered "resisting"?
I agree it's stupid. On your part. You don't just haul someone off without some sort of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat. And no, the FB postings were not sufficient, as the judge pointed out. The "evaluation" was to be conducted during 30 days in a mental ward, *after* they illegally abducted him, no evaluations by a doctor or other legitimate mental health authority were conducted before and used as a reason to detain him. That all came after the fact.
The only "nonsense" here is from you and the government. He made no specific or direct threats, again according to a judge, and the judge even strongly chastised the actions against Raub by the government.
I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.
"First they came for..."
I won't let them get down to me before I speak out.
Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?
If you don't understand your rights, where they come from, and the principles and Rule of Law upon which this country was built and became the freest nation to ever exist, please refrain from voting or expressing other unqualified and ignorant opinions until you've done your civics homework.
Strat
So you've got some guy who is an ex-Marine parroting fringe conspiracy theories, and saying stuff like "Just know that a new beginning is coming." and "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads." If this guy had gone postal, you'd have the media questioning why the authorities ignored the obvious warning signs.
If he was only detained for conspiracy theories, that would be one thing, but that just isn't the case.
Hey, there are things they could have done besides bum-rushing the guy and throwing him in a mental ward.
You know, like talk to the guy. Ask him; "Gee, we're a little worried here, help us out, what did you mean by this? We're just concerned for your own and other people's safety."
That's just it. Any reasonable people whose only goal was his and the public's safety would have had a talk with him, his family, etc before tossing him straight into the looney bin, do not pass "Go", do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist, or make any other attempt to ascertain his state of mind.
That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.
I had a neighbor once that worried some people with bizarre behavior. They sent a pair of social workers with a mental health background to talk to the guy, with a black-and-white parked down the street observing. They talked to the guy for about a half-hour, turned around, and left. He was not a danger to himself or others. The situation wasn't escalated, he wasn't provoked or alarmed. I watched him try to give the social workers tomatoes from his garden.
*That's* how it's done when the primary goal is not to put a boot on someone's neck for expressing their opinions.
Strat