Category Archives: Law

by - 0 comments

Make sure you think for yourself

So the Ferguson, Missouri shooting seems like an uncontroversial thing to write about. Nobody’s got strong feelings on this at all. It’s been a pretty quiet issue all things being equal.

I’m not wading into what happened. There’s only two men who know what really happened in Ferguson. One of them is dead. So they have to ask the cop. And maybe the witnesses. In the end, nobody’s going to ever get the truth. It’s the way these things go.

What really scares me though is the media’s narrative and the broader trends. Michael Brown, a young black man, was shot four days ago. It’s been front page news ever since. Every news outlet in the country is all over this.

But have you ever heard of Kevin McCullers? While backing out of his driveway on July 17th he was shot in the spine by a cop there to serve him a warrant for unpaid parking tickets. The officer claimed he believed McCullers was trying to run him over. The story never left the local news.

I’m not wading into what happened. There’s only two men who know what really happened to Mr McCullers. One of them is alive, but paralyzed. So they’ll have to ask them both. And maybe any witnesses. In the end, nobody’s going to ever get the truth. It’s the way these things go.

So why is one incident front page national news and the other incident pure local news?

In both cases an unarmed man was shot by a cop under disputed circumstances. 

Well, that I’ll wade into.

1) It’s considered a bigger deal when an unarmed teenager is shot than an unarmed middle-aged man

2) The most fervent race baiters in our culture are the media because they think it sells

3) A lot of people probably think Mr McCullers should have just paid his parking tickets whereas I’m pretty sure Mr Brown was not initially accused of any crime

We’ve written about the enforcers previously. My problem is that both these incidents should have been covered by the media equally. We have a racial problem in America of varying degrees, it depends on who you ask.

But you know what, we also have an enforcer problem in America. And our inflammatory media should be covering that facet more than just the racial aspect. But they won’t, because as mentioned, they’re race baiters and profiteers first. The broader public interest doesn’t excite them or their wallets.

Do you still not get what I’m saying? How about this:

The District Attorney Jim Martin says Mr McCullers could have avoided a shot to the back had he entered into a parking ticket payment plan. Wow, clearly here’s a civil servant deeply concerned that an unarmed free citizen was shot over a pittance. This is the contempt you are held by at least some portion of the folks who are paid by you, to serve you.

I’m not saying in these two specific incidents that both these cops are horrible human beings.  Maybe they both just made really bad mistakes.  People, cops too, are human.  And humans make bad mistakes every day.  Or maybe Mr Brown actually tried to take the officer’s gun and Mr McCullers actually tried to run the cop over.  Like I said, nobody’s ever going to get the real truth.

But what I am saying is that this kind of thing happens too often.  Across all races, all ages, all of the country.  Maybe it’s always been this way, and now we actually hear about it because of social media, the internet, etc.  Either way, it’s got to stop or a free nation we are not.

Don’t listen to the media’s take alone.

richardandhisteam

Make sure you think for yourself.

by - 1 Comment

I suppose, by the law, I should be in handcuffs

Just about every third show on television features a cop. Unfortunately, what the police actually do in today’s country isn’t reflected in entertainment. In case anybody hasn’t paid attention, the cop of the old days, the crime fighter and community servant no longer exists. Instead, your local beat walker is now just an enforcer.

I cannot make this distinction enough. There’s a difference between a cop and an enforcer.

A police officer is a guy or gal who protects you, your friends, and your family. They serve you.

An enforcer is a bureaucratic creature that protects and serves the law. Not you.

Now you probably think that the law serves and protects you. So if the police serve and protect the law, they’re doing the same for you. This used to be the way it was. It no longer is.

I want you to look around for a moment. Then realize that right now, this very second, you’re a criminal. There is at least one, if not several laws you are currently breaking. You don’t know what they are. You likely aren’t doing anything wrong. But you’re still breaking the law.

It used to be, and those not in touch with reality still claim, that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. This is literally no longer possible when the law is so widespread and convoluted that even the wisest minds in the legal profession cannot agree on what it says. Every single person in today’s America is ignorant of at least some, if not a substantial portion of the modern legal code.

And added to this problem is that we now ask an increasingly numerous and empowered enforcement arm to implement this law book. Once upon a time your local beat cop made sure you weren’t murdered or robbed. Now a deputy-assistant-agent-investigator from your state’s department of labor is after you for violating section 4.b.#.1 of the legal code.

Since the government needs your obedience to such a wide variety of laws, the government makes sure its enforcers are commanding said obedience. Your local police officer is in service to get the law obeyed. You’re not the objective anymore. The law is.

Add added to this problem is a completely risk adverse culture where folks are unsatisfied, outraged, and demand action at the simplest of deliberate or accidental mistakes. You can’t even say anything that offends somebody without being accused of making love to Stalin’s ghost.

In a world where it’s considered a fatal mistake to even say something wrong, you can only imagine the fury of the laws we’ve written to prevent actual actions that result in errors. Common sense and learning from our mistakes has given way to punishment, justice, and the brutality of hindsight.

And so a law book twelve feet thick, with a government that still demands you know & obey it all, enforced by enforcers who are empowered and demanded to enforce it all, and guided by a society that does not tolerate risk or mistakes. Well, here we are folks.

This is how battle armored attack teams end up kicking down doors to point machine pistols at illegal flower growers. Or why ten year old girls are handcuffed for acting like ten olds. Or why unarmed citizens are shot dead by police for crimes worthy of a fifty dollar citation. Or why there are twice as many Americans behind bars than serve in the military.

Think you’re free? You’re not. You’re just lucky. Lucky that you haven’t been arrested for violating one of the many laws you’re currently breaking. Lucky that your number hasn’t come up.

It might be your time eventually, your turn in the enforcer’s meat grinder. But until your day comes, maybe you can ignore the problem? Just about everybody else does. So why not you?

All of this has been on my brain lately. But then an incident happened that reinforced this mindset. So why do I belong behind bars? Because I drove ten minutes without my driver’s license. My driving record is impeccable. I have a license. I just didn’t have it on me.

I was at a blissful family event. I was completely unplugged. I intentionally brought neither my keys, cell phone, nor wallet. Later on, I volunteered to drive home given the inebriation of the car’s five occupants. I had three beers over three hours in me, so I put my paw up.

Only as I was getting behind the wheel did I remember I didn’t have my wallet. My options at that point, I guess, were to call us a cab, hand the keys to an intoxicated individual, or hang out for five hours until somebody with a physical license was sober.

Instead, with the above thoughts in my mind, I said fuck it. I knew what I was doing. I did it anyways. I drove us all home. I decided I was not in the wrong. The law says I was wrong. But I say I was in the right by the laws of what’s good with all humanity.

In the old days (maybe as recent as fifteen years ago), if I’d been pulled over under these circumstances, and explained the situation to the cop? Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d hope he’d have looked at me, checked his computer, used his best judgment, and sent me on my way with a wag of his finger.

I think today the enforcer, without the training, authority, or desire to use judgment would have arrested me, impounded the car, I’d have been fired from at least one of my jobs, lost my license, paid thousands in fines, and so on.

How would society have benefitted from this negative outcome?

What does the culture lose with handling it the old fashioned way?

Maybe you think my original argument and/or the circumstances of this situation are wrong. That I’m just a bad person. Or made a dumb decision. Maybe. If you do, I completely understand. But I use this as an illustration of what I think is so very wrong with where our society has gone.

Agree or disagree with me. I don’t care. Just promise me you’ll think about this.

All of this is happening around us. You’re either good with it or you’re not. I’m not. But for now, as long as you’re thinking about this. Even if we disagree, we’re good.

enforcers

I say, “To protect and serve” no longer exists

by - 1 Comment

Don’t eat at Il Giardino, it’s the place to avoid

Yet again some loser has used the courts to crush free speech. Instead of, you know, improving their product and/or service. It’ll happen to you soon enough, because it would seem the courts no longer defend liberty, they assault it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28331598

I’ve never eaten at this restaurant, but I can tell you based upon their immoral behavior, that they suck. You should never eat there.

I stand by the title and content of this blog post. Sue me, assholes.

JACKBOOT

by - 0 comments

Religious freedom goes both ways

At times you’d think we were back in the year 1640 or 1780. It seems we’re revisiting the same religious debates again. Only this time we’re generally not settling them with swords and gunfire. Today it’s a war of ideas.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled, I think, that you cannot compel a mostly private corporation to provide a benefit that violates its religious beliefs. I say that ‘I think’ because honestly who knows what these rulings mean anymore. The law has become so convoluted and obscure that even talented and experienced Supreme Court lawyers can’t agree on what the ruling means.

So let’s just generally agree for our purposes here that a corporation is not required to provide benefit (x) if it goes against its religious belief (y). Also, please just presently ignore the for or against arguments about corporations being ‘people’. I’ll get to that topic many posts down the road. I guess.

Today, the European Court ruled, I think, that the French ban on face covering religious clothing is legal. I found this rather surprising as usually the European courts are all about enabling multiculturalism to the point of cultural suicide. It seems the court sided, I think, with the idea that the law’s intent was based upon the concealment of the face for security purposes vice the religious connotation.

Only a judge or a lawyer could make such a distinction with a straight face. I’m pretty sure if I wore an old white hockey mask in an elementary school somebody would call the police in about eight seconds. I’m not so sure you’d get such an instant reaction if you wore the hijab. Or maybe you would, it probably depends on where you are, and who sees you.

Now a number of folks will claim this ban is necessary because it protects these women from their husbands who will demand that they wear this garb. First off, that takes a fairly negative view of the confidence of Muslim women. Second, if somebody’s in a marriage where the husband can order what clothes the wife can wear, I’m pretty sure there are bigger problems in the marriage than a law on clothing can solve.

As much as folks may try, you cannot command all human behavior by legislation. We already have rules on unlawful imprisonment and spousal abuse. We also do not have laws that prohibit a spouse from being a dick to the other.

Another number of folks will claim that the future of all women is detonated by asking them to spend twelve bucks a week to buy their own morning-after-pill. I have no idea what it actually costs, I’ve never bought it, but I’m pretty sure its pennies on the dollar compared to how much cash people blow on smartphones, fancy coffee, and the zoo. This argument isn’t about women. It’s about winning elections, control, and demanding that one side agree with your beliefs. Or else.

Kindly observe however, the manner in which the world’s talking-face-hypocrites will hold up one ruling as:

a) Hobby Lobby’s a paragon defense of religious freedom; the anti-burka law is a sensible defense of Western values

OR

b) Hobby Lobby is against women’s rights; Muslim women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want

Neither argument is coherent.

Hobby Lobby does not want to hand out the morning-after-pill on its dime to their employees. It violates their religious beliefs. Okay. A Muslim woman desires to wear the full length nijab in public. It supports her religious beliefs. Okay.

Reasonable people will have very severe problems with both of these scenarios. But I challenge you to legitimately claim that both players aren’t exercising their own version of religious freedom. So when you try and ban one, or both, either way you are assaulting religious liberty. You either have both, or neither. Sorry.

And take your extreme scenarios elsewhere. Hobby Lobby is not about to produce a creepy black cloaked doctor to examine the genitals of its female, and male, employees. The hijab wearing woman’s husband is likely in fact not designing and building a nail bomb in his basement. Grow up or calm down. Or hopefully do both.

We’ve blogged extensively on the growing theft of freedom. Soon, the right to avoid being offended anywhere by anybody or anything will overpower your freedom of speech. Soon, the right to avoid being in any kind of danger anywhere from anybody or anything will overpower your freedom against unlawful search and seizure.

But for those who are about religious freedom, you’d better circle the wagons. As far as inalienable human rights go, religious freedom is the one that modern society can dispense with the easiest. Just look at today’s hyper-modern consumer cities. In Tokyo or London or Shanghai or New York I figure around 5% of people attend some kind of religious service on a weekly basis.

So those who support Hobby Lobby or the nijab had better become allies. They’re going to need each other to survive. Either it’s all okay, or none of it is. This blog and its degenerate author are hoping that all of it is.

burqa-eiffel

I personally desire to revoke this guy’s man card, but respect that this woman is an adult and deserves her choices in freedom of religion

by - 0 comments

Our anger will steal our freedom

The Sterling matter has reached a level of intensity and fury that renders me almost speechless. You could write books on this insanity. Why are people so upset about something that was so clearly on display well before last week? Why do so many regard this as important when there are so many other issues that actually count? And the one thing that really scares me, why is the public so unaware of the danger we incur by destroying this man?

By any reasonable definition, what Sterling said is abhorrent. It goes against the values that make our society great. But you know what else makes our culture great? The right to say pretty much whatever you want. Without freedom of speech we cannot have freedom of thought. Without freedom of thought we are intellectually doomed and our liberty will evaporate.

The entire furious and widespread arm of our media and culture set out to annihilate Sterling for words he said, in private, to his mistress, over the phone. Now a number of you will say that he’s not a true private citizen. Nobody made him buy a basketball team. If he wants to own an NBA franchise he’d better behave himself, otherwise it’s the right of the citizenry to remove him from his ownership when he behavior goes outside the norm. I say that’s complete, destructive, nonsense.

Show me the law that Sterling has broken? His words were disgusting, but they are just words, and he’s allowed to say them. Society might find those words offensive, but that doesn’t give civilization the right or responsibility to remove him from the planet. The sanctity of our liberty is more important than punishing the hatred of one twisted old man. For those of you who still don’t understand what I’m saying, take these two examples:

– What if an NHL owner was caught on tape telling his mistress that those who support abortion rights are “worse than scum, murderers” and then pro-abortion groups mobilized their entire political and financial resources to destroy that owner

– What if a MLB owner was caught on tape telling his mistress that those who oppose Obamacare’s implementation are “worse than scum, murderers” and then anti-Obamacare groups mobilized their entire political and financial resources to destroy that owner

Do you see how this goes, where it can lead? Where does it stop? It stops with you being unable to speak your mind, express yourself, even in private. The same laws, traditions, and rights that guide freedom of speech for a basketball owner, apply to you.

We all became livid when we learned the NSA had the capability, authority, and intent to listen and record every single word we spoke or typed. Think that’s awful? Just wait until you live in a world where the NSA still does that, but society and the media are also listening, waiting for you to say something that’s offensive to somebody, and then crush you. You’d never be free again.

tj

This fine gentlemen believes Sterling is a “right-honorable-shit” but would back him in on the street and in court

by - 0 comments

They’re guilty so we have somebody to blame for our anger

The institutions & traditions that guide our society are not on default. They can live forever or they can evaporate. The difference between the two depends on us. Not politicians, business, or our ancestors. Us. If we fail to preserve the distinct factors which make us free, we will one day find that the life we know is gone. And if that be so, we’ll have no excuse at all to whine. We will have failed and those who came before us will damn us for our recklessness and stupidity.

Pick three or four key phrases that guide our liberty and I hope one of them would be:

“The accused are innocent until proven guilty.”

This key tenant of our legal system has been around for nearly two thousand years. It’s explicitly or implicitly written into a large number of constitutions. We’re taught it in schools. We’re made to believe that it’s what separates us from the forces of darkness.

I’m going to let you in on a little (well known) secret folks. It’s a lie. The accused are guilty until proven innocent. Even the most senior members of our tribes are in on it.

Today, Park Geun-hye, a democratically elected president outright accused a ferry crew of actions, “akin to murder”. She wasn’t there. The investigation is ongoing. Nobody has a clue at this point what really happened. But in front of a very large crowd a president decided to play prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and jury. Case closed.

She then went on to claim that those accused will face charges. Uh, Madam President, how exactly do you expect them to now receive a fair trial since you’ve called them murderers? Well friends, she doesn’t, she doesn’t care. She’s already said she wants them destroyed. She isn’t interested in justice for anybody, not the accused, not the victims.

The entire basis of our judicial system, and that of almost any Western nation, is that everybody is equal before the law. Everybody. Regardless of the charges, the circumstances, who they are as people, what kind of beer they like, whatever. It’s an even playing field. Does this always happen? No, we’re human, but the aspiration is to get as close as possible.

When you have a president blowing off the rules less than a week after the incident at hand, folks, the train has derailed. What I find most shocking (I’m actually not really shocked) is that almost every, single, major news outlet has managed to not understand just how dangerous and pervasive these words are to our culture and values. They report on her words, without understanding their context when it comes to integrity. Don’t blame the media too hard, they just don’t understand, hard reporting is not their thing.

We have a different concept we use to describe heads of state who whether through deceit, irresponsibility, or just plain anger, subvert the justice system for their own personal or professional gain. We call them dictators.

Now a number of you will claim that this is in Park’s blood. Her Father had it in him, the emotion of the last few days just exposes her inner self. I do not agree. This is because whether it’s your own head of state, your mayor, or any other politician or leader? Well friends, I have noticed a growing trend where the guilty are thrown on the block in front of a unruly crowd and cameras as soon as possible in a manner unbecoming our freedom. Don’t believe me? Go watch your news the next time somebody is arrested for an accused financial crime, a murder, a horrific accident, and so on.

What these leaders will claim is they’re battling for justice. No, what they’re battling for is anger. Anger is not justice. Anger perverts justice, poisons it, and lays it hollow and meek. Don’t blame them completely. It’s your fault too. You get angry, you want justice, but you don’t actually seek justice, but a cure for your anger.

The Koreans are angry. They have every right to be. This is a horrific accident. But until the actual facts are known, until the process has a chance to play itself out? Not only will we not see any true justice, we will also demolish any possibility to learn from this disaster so that it may never occur again.

Park is telling the crowd exactly what they want to hear. In this, she has fallen into the same trap of irresponsibility as many other leaders today. The job of a true leader, especially a true democrat, is not to always tell the crowd what they want to hear. In the darkest moments, sometimes the most immortal and moral thing a leader must do is tell the crowd what they don’t want to hear. Her foremost task is to buttress the system that makes her people free. It’s not her right to destroy the values her office is chartered to defend.

The crew deserves their day in court. They will no longer have it.

Your arrested neighbor deserves their day in court. So does the potential drug dealer down by the corner, or the accused child molester picked up by the school.

In the grand scheme of things, anger is irrelevant. What lasts forever is justice. Without justice there is no difference between us and pure darkness, the medieval world we’ve left behind in the name of morality and liberty.

Next time something like this happens, close to your home, realize the destruction that anger wields, and take a moment to pursue a deep breath in the name of freedom. Then, when a leader steals your liberty in the cause of anger & evil? Hold them accountable.

dictator_park

Today, more than any other moment, I am now just like my North Korean counterpart.

by - 0 comments

Ignorance & misplaced trust lay the groundwork for danger & theft

Nobody just wakes up in the morning and before lunch announces to tens-of-millions of people that they’re about to pay more for less quality. You prepare the battlefield. You try to move opinions and interpretations of an issue. This is so they hate you less when you propose to damage the lives of many, and stab them in the back in a reckless & cynical attempt to please a company who gave your political bosses lots of campaign cash.

The Post is usually very good at reading the way the winds are blowing inside Washington. They have a decent feel for what the culture of the town is currently thinking. You tend to believe that Washington is run by folks who get your vote. More and more it’s run by a legion of permanent and unelected bureaucrats.

Your chosen representative is a visitor. The people who influence decisions live there. They are each other’s friends, their kids attend the same schools, they drink beer together, this is their life. So what they think of an issue matters. It guides the way a topic is discussed and debated. So when the Post makes such an emphatic statement of support for one side? You can guarantee a good chunk, if not a majority, of Washington thinks the same thing. And thus the Post has determined that it’s okay for Comcast to enslave the market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fcc-should-approve-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-but-keep-a-watchful-eye/2014/04/14/41838cc0-c1bf-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html

If you’ve followed my previous posts on this issue you’ll know I substantially disagree with the Post’s assessment. It’s a good argument, but I don’t concur. I have two key problems with the Post’s supporting evidence.

1) A misguided understanding of the future of the broadband market

The Post seems to think that Comcast faces aggressive competition both now and in the future. And thus the market will keep them in check. They make the claim that potentially there are other upcoming options outside the connections of wired companies. Or that a wired business will face many new future competitors.

Everybody brings up Google Fiber as an example. Folks, even in the next decade Google Fiber is going to be available to only 2% of the population. And I think that’s too high an estimate. If even goliath Google doesn’t see a practical or financial inventive to offer this new service to like 33% of the market, what do you think the chances are that anybody else will? Without something like mandated line sharing, nobody new is going to enter the market because it takes billions up front to lay the infrastructure to establish a comprehensive, urban, wired product.

They then also state that Comcast’s critics are “speculating” when they claim it’ll use it’s dominance of the market to promote its own content. Now if the Post honestly believes Comcast, or any other reasonable corporation, would not use market supremacy to promote content they own? No, no really the Post can’t be this stupid. Trust me folks, they’ll advance the interests of their own content. I’d bet one of my dogs on it.

And don’t believe for a second that there’s a future outside wires. Comcast or Verizon offer speeds up to 500M. Almost no traditional (affordable) wireless internet option provides over 100M. Don’t let people tell you wireless anything can overpower the dominance of a business that owns the stuff buried underneath the ground. The electromagnetic spectrum is only so big. You can’t ignore the laws of physics.

2) Trust in routine, daily regulation

The Post believes that Washington, the civil service, is in a position to “… respond if big industry players begin to violate basic principles of market fairness”. Essentially the Post is saying they trust the bureaucracy to establish and enforce “fairness” if a broadband corporation (Comcast) steps out of line.

Well, what’s “fairness”? And what laws guide the current broadband internet market? Don’t look to the legislature to inform you. Congress still hasn’t crafted comprehensive laws that update guidelines since the internet became such a part of daily life. By the way, as with most things, a major villain here is a Congress that can’t do its job.

So if the laws aren’t a reasonable benchmark for regulators, then they’re left to basically make it up and trust their gut. And if civil servants are left to make it up, then they can essentially do whatever they want. When the bureaucracy decides what is “fair”, the individual consumer is going to lose. Why? Because the individual consumer doesn’t have campaign cash in the quantity that the corporation does. The Post trusts regulators to be “fair”, but it’s not an equal playing field between the consumer and the corporation, and so it can’t be “fair”. Particularly when, as we’ve previously posted, the guy making the decision spent decades lobbying for the people he’s presiding over.

This isn’t a normal business operation in the sense that you have the option to choose. What do I mean by that? Nobody makes you go buy McDonalds or an X-Box. These are add-ons to your life. I suppose you also have the option to not buy broadband internet, but if you do not possess fast, reliable internet? You’re going to get culturally & practically left behind everybody who does. You think inequality is bad now? Wait until access to the internet is controlled nationwide by maybe two or three entities, which possess isolated monopolies, and manage what content you see.

This isn’t just about how much you pay. It’s also about quality of service. When you don’t have competition, don’t be surprised when your service is complete garbage. Think it’s a coincidence that Comcast has arguably the worst customer service rating? The beneficial rules of the market break down when the game is rigged. Broadly speaking, there are exceptions, Americans already pay more for a less capable connection with far fewer options than most of the Western world.

Everything you do is supposedly going online: your car, your thermostat, your job, your pet’s medical records, your pacemaker, your kid’s homework, and so on. You don’t need Burger King to play in the modern world. Without internet access, you’re toast. This is why aggressive management of this topic is so important. It’s why normally when I’d just let capitalism do its thing, that I’m so inclined to mistrust leaving this one alone. The Post makes a pretty good case. But I just can’t agree with their technical assumptions. And I sure as hell don’t trust their faith in the regulatory regime to keep this “fair” for the individual consumer.

I’ve brought up this example before, and I’m going to keep doing it because it illustrates just how important this issue is. One day, when you’re close to being a bleached skeleton, your failing heart is going to be connected to your doctor via your internet connection. Do you want a monopoly and its regulators running your internet? If you do, or you don’t care, then you deserve the service & price you’ll get.

Comcast Corp CEO Brian Roberts speaks at the WEB 2.0 summit in San Francisco

Ah, yes, (sips brandy) my well-targeted influence campaign is paying off (tents fingers)

by - 0 comments

Let’s ask the robots to battle human misery

It’s cool to distract ourselves from the crushing reality of life with neat little treats, right? Look everybody, it’s a creepy solar powered robot directing traffic in a destitute country. How awesome is that! Well, not at all. If you think it is, as apparently half the modern news media does, you need to go first in line when the machines conveyer belt us all into the incinerator.

I don’t get the fascination with the two Kinshasa robots. In a broken city of ten million dominated by poverty, crime, and corruption we get a series of one or two paragraph articles from our wise, establishment journalists about a faceless little robot that replaces a transportation cop. This just displaced the human to walk a beat so he could get cash. When he’s stuck in the middle of the traffic circle, he can’t demand money.

I want to know how much these robots cost and then how much sleaze occurred just to get them built. Don’t ask the news idiots for that information; they’re not in the business of asking hard questions. They were too busy interviewing the Congolese officials, who bought a new refrigerator off the bribe cash they got, how they put the robots there.

Or maybe I’m wrong, it seems even the most impoverished soul loves the robots because they actually do their jobs and can’t request currency. So they’re superior to your average Congolese enforcer. Hell, they’re even better than any human, anywhere.

Let’s build more of them! They can perform all kinds of delightful tasks:

a) Cure Polio – Militant religious (not religious) assholes will have a real hard time assassinating a polio vaccination worker made of titanium.

b) Banish Malaria – Since we as a human race can’t afford to issue everybody six dollar bed nets, the robots can stand guard and zap mosquitos that approach at night.

c) Purify Potable Water – The robot will stand next to your putrid source, extend a pipe from its groin into the water, and then produce ready to drink liquid from his hand into your container of choice.

d) Execute Justice – A black cloaked machine will preside over the courts and interpret the law impartially using a wide database of past legal history. Verdicts will surprisingly be rendered without considering the influence of financial wealth and/or death threats.

e) Enforce the Righteous Arm of Morality – Thug androids made of tungsten will patrol the beat with all government and law enforcement officials. Said machine will be preprogrammed to identify the chemical reactions present in the skin and brain of an official demanding a bribe. If observed, the thug robot breaks the legs of the offending individual with a pipe.

I mean honestly, why not, it’s not like we’re going to do any of these things ourselves.

robot

I live only to serve the public. Your adoration is enough to fuel all my physical and spiritual desires.

by - 0 comments

Arcturus News Muster – 24 March 2014

On Arcturus, the news is presented for consumption by a grizzled Arcturan enforcer veteran (nobody retires) who provides coherent analysis, with heavy bias, and an educated filter. This means he sounds awfully like an Earth reporter, except for the intelligence part. Thus, bask in the glory of the work of Ashik-Al of the Ninth Regiment. Or don’t, either way, I assure you, he doesn’t care.

 

1) Egyptian Court Channels “Inner Asshole”

The Arcturus Project News

In a development shocking only to those who don’t understand the Arab mind a court in Egypt sentenced to death over five-hundred supporters of deposed President Mohammed Morsi. The five-hundred are said to have received the privilege of martyrdom as they were not among the more than one-thousand shot dead by security forces in the streets earlier this year. “They just squeaked through somehow,” said Interior Ministry Colonel Ibrahim “The Bull” Ibn Trigger, “we just couldn’t get them to connect with a bullet in the air. So we’re going to have to do this the hard way.”

Critics charged that the brief, clearly one-sided, verdict was beyond extreme for the death of only one police officer. However, analysts stated the verdict is likely to lessen on appeal and that an Egyptian death sentence is rarely carried out in practice. “What we’ll see is a lot of folks locked up, but I don’t think we’re going to see any mass executions,” quoted one justice expert from the World Bank.

Colonel Ibn Trigger agreed with this assessment. “I think in the end, most of these guys will actually go completely free. We’re just trying to scare them a little. Who do you think we are, Assad? We’d never get away with such a horrific crime of executing so many behind bars. Plus, if they’re on the streets again, I can go back to work.”

 

2) Bankers Acquire More Cash to Lick Celebratory Cigars

The Arcturus Project News

The United Kingdom’s Co-op Bank was to obtain more than £400M in cash ($659M) to make up for its more than £1.2B loss from 2013. It will raise the money via a unique share issue. The move follows the discovery of additional factors exposing the further fragile nature of the bank’s organization and stability.

The new funds were also required to lick an extended shipment of Cuban cigars that arrived just this month. The priceless tobacco came to celebrate the bank’s continued success despite an ongoing history of civil and criminal failures. Said Chief Executive Niall Booker, “Nobody’s ever been punished. I’m completely incompetent. I’m making at least £40M this year. Who wouldn’t want to celebrate. This is the best job on the planet.”

Mr Booker brushed away criticism that the bank is unmanageable and that its overall health as an institution was in question at severe risk to the British taxpayer. “Fuck you,” he offered, “Fuck you all.”

 

3) An Interview with the New Boss of Belbek

The Arcturus Project News

The Arcturus Project News spoke with Sergei Pianowirevich, recently appointed by President Vladimir Putin as Interim Commander, Belbek Air Force Base, Crimea.

The Arcturus Project: Colonel Pianowirevich, thanks for agreeing to speak with us via telephone.

Colonel Pianowirevich: My pleasure, but please, I’m no colonel.

TAP: Ah, my apologies, your rank?

Pianowirevich: I’m actually a vice marshall of the local Russian culture, vodka, & chess club.

TAP: Uh, …, okay, so ah, …, Vice Marshall Pianowirevich?

Pianowirevich: Yes?

TAP: Okay, ah, so, …, how’s your first day in command going? And congratulations on your glorious victory.

Vice Marshall Pianowirevich: Thank you. Thank you. Splendid, splendid. We’re taking an inventory of equipment, assets, and ensuring security is handled well.

TAP: And the former Ukrainian occupants?

VMP: Ha! Don’t worry, those dirty fascist rats are headed home safely. We’re not animals after all!

TAP: Holy shit! (drops glass) You guy’s took a bunch of fucking Nazis prisoner!?

VMP: Uh, excuse me?

TAP: A bunch of freaking Nazis! You gotta be shitting me!? (throws notes) How many? Were they true black suited SS!?

VMP: You seem to misunderstand, they are Ukrainian fascists from their country’s armed forces.

TAP: You said they were fascists. Ukrainian Nazis. They have to be like ninety, each of them.

VMP: Yes, yes, but not Nazis, German Nazis, they’re all young. You see there’s a difference.

TAP: Ah, I see, forgive me but I’m really confused. How would you describe the difference?

VMP: I don’t understand.

TAP: Well you see, I’m an educated man, I read things, and I guess when you say fascists I think of all those Nazis that burned half of Russia sixty years ago.

VMP: Yes, that’s them! Hehe, you’ve got it.

TAP: Ah, so how many Russian’s did those dirty Hitler-lovers get this time before you stepped in?

VMP: …

TAP: Vice Marshall?

VMP: No, yes, but you seem to misunderstand, the fascists were here to enslave Russians.

TAP: So they must have really burned the shit out of the Russian quarter in Sevastopol. Did they do a bunch of old fashioned Luger executions by the sausage stand before you guy’s moved in to save the day?

VMP: Now listen, I see where this is going, you’re one of them. You’re a dirty Western fascist! I’m not going to stand for this propaganda. We did what we wanted on our own. We cleansed our great nation and returned it to our Motherland! (pounds desk)

TAP: So before you moved in, what then if not the Lugers, like, did the fascists do it by the vodka stand with MP-38s?

VMP: (unintelligible profanity) Capitalist, fascist, dog! (unintelligible profanity) (phone line terminated)

TAP: So he does realize he gave us his phone number & address up front right? (mumbling) Yeah, yeah. (mumbling) Okay, let’s dial again. He’s new to the valiant colonel’s office, he doesn’t know how to block the calls yet. (mumbling) Then we’ll try his home number too, either way we’re good. We can let his wife know what an awesome Nazi hunter her husband is.

(end tape)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26712124

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26711702

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26713727

 fine_gentleman

Oh my, this $500 stogie tastes so much better when it’s licked by your shattered dreams.

by - 0 comments

The problem with capitalism is?

Think the laws are asinine?  That they appear as if written by elves popped up on meth?  It’s all true, except that meth elves would write better legislation than your average politician.  Especially because meth elves can’t be bought off with campaign cash, special favors, or drugs.  Except if those drugs are meth, in which case you could get the meth elves to vote for legalized schoolchildren abduction.

Try this detailed & thorough legislative process on for size, friends:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/19/fight-over-tennessee-whiskey-spills-into-international-booze-business/?hpid=z5

So folks have distilled whiskey in Tennessee for a long time.  Now, for whatever reason (there is no legitimate reason by the way), a bunch of politicians have decided they are going to tell humanity what is and is not whiskey.  Did you hear that?  A guy who can’t remember where his car keys are until his sycophantic aide reminds him is going to tell a master distiller how to run his business.

Then two extremely large and rich multinational corporations are going to get involved too.  Their purpose is to lobby (buy) the votes necessary to craft the legislation that is most beneficial to their interests.

Guess who gets lost in all of this?  You.  You’re too stupid to look at a label and buy the whiskey you think is best at an honest and reasonable price.  Politicians and big business are going to tell you what is whiskey, how much you should pay for it, the meaning of life, and whether or not you should have broken up with that girl thirty years ago.  Don’t ask questions, don’t think, just keep shoveling your hard earned cash at them please, they’re busy and important men.  They don’t have time to care what you think.

I’ve been churning a lot lately on why most folks now hate capitalism when the alternatives have such an awesome track record.  I think I’ve hit on it.  People don’t hate capitalism.  They hate crony capitalism.  And they really, really despise that the game is rigged.  They want an honest playing field for all.  They don’t want elite political and corporate leaches ruining it for the rest of us because the leaches want a new boat.  Now you’re going to tell me that’s because capitalism, crony capitalism, and a rigged game go hand-in-hand.  So it’s all the same thing right?

I disagree.  They’ve been making whiskey for two hundred plus years in Tennessee without this law.  Seeing as how I’ve sat across the table and toasted Tennessee whiskey with Japanese, Russians (they’re not all Vlad loving fuckers), tart Brits, and Koreans with Tennessee whiskey in the glass, I can assure you their use of capitalism is working just fine.  But now, we’ll go ahead and add crony capitalism and vote buying to the distiller’s mix.  Awesome, way to ruin a great thing, assholes.  It’ll make a lot of politicians and corporations very rich.  You’ll lose out, and so will the small business distillers, but nobody cares about that.

So remember, next time you think the laws are screwed up, or that capitalism is unfair?  Call your local politician.  Don’t tell the first goon on the line you’re there to complain.  First tell them that you represent Proctor & Gamble and wish to contribute $500K to the next campaign.  Then, when the real person is on the line, let ‘em have it with both barrels, frontier Tennessee style!

Jack-Daniels

Suddenly, I taste a lot worse when I’m endorsed by the state.