Saturday, May 29, 2010

Stumbling towards real sovereignty

My response to this which was a response to this . It is about "Swarm Power" and Instapundit got the ball rolling.

For more on this (beyond the comments below) see "Your Personal Digital Dictator" and "The Emergence of Revolution"

I have to disagree, I think it (swarm power) IS an advancement. I don’t entirely agree with the notion of “swarm”, but I do strongly advocate any system that results from most individuals being self-sufficient and many of them producing enough to create an exchangeable surplus. That kind of emergence market is ultra-redundant and nearly fool-proof. As opposed to national or international monoliths which serve as centralized generation and distribution systems. Doesn’t matter much what the essential thing is that is being produced; desired results as the consequence of self-organization and individual self-sufficiency always trump centralized production and distribution.

Bringing this back to the grid: we know that in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, States have mandated electrical consumption reduction percentages and deadlines. And so was born the Smart Meter and along with it an increase of the cost of power used during peak times, and the remote shutoff capacity. Increased cost of electricity used during peak time to “incentivize” voluntary consumption reduction, and remote-shutoff to simply shut you (or an appliance selected by the utility) off, if the price increase doesn’t give you sufficient incentive.

Centralization is not ultimate goodness, and a completely centralized civilization is no utopia. Instead, centralization of most, if not all, major essential systems (power, food, economy, government etc), is really the midwife to an emergent advanced network civilization where the hubs of production and distribution are very many and much much more local.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Why Rand Paul is right (Balls-o-Steel of the month winner for May 2010)

Asked whether he believed private businesses should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans, Rand Paul said,

"yes....I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. … But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?.......when they say I'm for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. It's never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics."

(editor: Mr. Paul, we should only limit racists free speech when the racists in question do not belong to a minority group. )

Legislation, no matter how good or well intended it is, always needs to be analyzed at a later date and even eventually repealed. We are in the analysis phase of the Civil Rights Act, realizing that not only are arts of it faulty altogether, but also that the Law is not equally enforced. For example, it is perfectly fine to discriminate in favor of one ethnic group to the exclusion of other ethnic groups so long as the favored group is a minority group and mostly so long as that minority group is African American.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Act, taken at its word is nearly impossible to fairly enforce. Consider the latest case:

""The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.

This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal "disparate impact" because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters."""

Now it only makes sense to hire the MOST QUALIFIED applicants, does it not? According to Civil Rights laws, it is not only immoral to hire those best qualified to do the job, but is actually ILLEGAL.

""John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the black applicants, said 'Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality,' "

So hiring those who are most qualified to do a job is a technicality that denies justice to job seekers?

Justice Scalia:
"""In Monday's opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law created "practical problems for employers" and could "produce puzzling results." He concluded, however, "it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix.""""",0,5851246.story?track=rss

So we have the Civil Rights Act not only being abused to justify discrimination in favor of certain ethnic groups, but we also have its application producing "puzzling" and "impractical" results.

All of us are Americans regardless of ethnic background or the color of our skin. The Law should apply EQUALLY to us all. When "anti-discrimination" laws result in actual discrimination it is definitely time for them to be at first analyzed and then eventually repealed, to be replaced by legislation that actually enforces true anti-discrimination measures.

When we start identifying ourselves as AMERICANS instead of these contrived groups that the media and our supposed "leaders" identify us as being, then we will finally begin healing the National divide maintained by those who profit and gain power from said divide.

Thank you Mr. Paul for having the GUTS to question something that is considered absolutely taboo in the world of politics. Rule #23 of Intellectual Honesty: Question EVERYTHING, and most especially question everything that people say you should never ever question.

Here's to Rand Paul for not only exercising intellectual honesty, but having the Balls-o-Steel to actually STAND BEHIND his statements explain them in a way in which their point is further advocated rather than simply explaining away the comments with some sort of pansy equivocation. What I think about Libertarianism in general can be read here, but to you Mr Paul, I raise my glass tonight!

Friday, May 14, 2010

Heroic SWAT Drug-Warriors cause innocent elderly woman to have a heart attack during a botched raid

The War on Drugs is unquestionably a tyranny.

Not only do we have the absolute abuse of civil asset forfeiture

....we also have an increasing frequency of bogus drug-raids which terrorize families, kill pets, damage property and ruin lives. It may just have killed the poor old lady in the story above.

There are three ways this will stop.

1. The War on Drugs needs to begin the process of winding down to an end, beginning with the legalization of marijuana.

2. Drug Raids and warrants served at the WRONG ADDRESSES or resulting in the obtaining of evidence of only misdemeanor crimal activity need to be defined legally as FELONIES. In other words, if the police hit the wrong address or only find evidence of the commission of a misdemeanor, than the police serving the warrant or conducting the raid should be guilty of felonies themselves. Simply put, the act of breaking down doors, traumatizing and injuring innocent people or people only guilty of misdemeanor crimes, is an incredibly serious offense against the liberty of the people. It really is a slap in the face of the concept of legitimate citizenship.

3. More home-invading Drug-Warrior breach teams need to be subject to the Castle Doctrine .

If the big bad Drug Warriors know they will be guilty of a felony if they harm innocent people, and that they will be subject to justified lethal counter-attack, you will see less and less badge wearing thugs willing and eager to hurt helpless citizens.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Your personal digital dictator

No, really.....

Lets start at the start, with smart meters, part of an overall strategy of a "smart grid". On the surface, the 'smart meter' will function as a way for you (and the utility provider and the government) to monitor how much electricity you use and when. Below the surface, one of the functions of the smart meter is automated remote shutoff. That means the meter allows someone other than you to shut off any appliance you are using at any time, from a remote location.

Now why would anyone from any remote location turn off your air-conditioner in the middle of a hot summer day, or shut off your tv in the middle of your favorite show, or your microwave in the middle of heating up dinner?

The answer, at least in Pennsylvania is Act 129. Act 129 requires electric service providers (the power company) to reduce consumption by 1% by May 31, 2011, 3% by May 31 2013, and 4.5% by May 31 2013. The power companies are to implement these reductions through the use of smart meters which will tell the consumer, the power company and the government exactly how much power you use and when you use it.

The initial idea is to "facilitate" voluntary reduction in consumption by making electricity used during peak hours more expensive than electricity used during off-peak hours. If this doesn't work, and there is no reason found so far that it will work, at all, then the Power Companies are to move from "facilitating" power consumption reduction to coercing power consumption reduction. What that means is that for every hour you have a different specific limit on how much electricity you can use (buy), and if you go over that amount, the Power Company will simply shut off your power.

Make no mistake, if you use more electricity than they want you to use, they will shut you off. They will either shut you off or they will receive massive fines for missing their consumption reduction goals.

If you think I am kidding check out this information from
Utility Service Partners the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the National Council on Electricity Policies guide to State by State implementation of the Federal Energy Policy Act.

This will affect the entire country. By the way, it was signed into law by George W Bush, so don't think that the little (R) or (D) next to a name means a damn thing. It really doesn't.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

SWAT heros murder family dog, rough up father, and traumatize 7 year old boy

Nice job guys!

I am sure you all feel like Real American Heroes, killing the family dog, roughing up the dad and scaring the shit out of the seven year old son! You sure did a good job stopping that guy from smoking that little bit of marijuana you found in the residence.

Really, what a fucking joke. Anyone that wears a badge, enforces absurd drug-laws, and thinks they are actually helping the community needs to be ashamed of themselves. So what, the guy had some pot he was probably going to smoke. How many times have you tossed back a beer in front of your own kids? Yet beer was at one time outlawed and thugs like you felt more manly by putting your boot on the throat of beer-drinkers, just like you feel more manly by putting your boot on the neck of some stupid pot head.

Every once in awhile, while in the process of brutalizing a peaceful family, the thugs get their asses handed to them by someone trying to protect their family and then the whole lot of you shed big crocodile tears about your comrades fallen in the line of duty. Line of duty? Its your duty to terrorize the community instead of protect it?

THIS is why people hate cops, and why so many well armed and trained folks feel pretty passionately that a shiny badge is really just a target marking a piece of shit that gets off brutalizing peaceful families and small children.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

More from Ann Arbor- Need help and need it quick? Call the militia.

Militias rallied to help find missing man...and guess what, even the maligned "Hutaree" showed up to help. Here is the news story. MUCH more on this later. Essentially: In terms of a rapid response, trained, organized and enthusiastic organization with a high level of expertise in the lay of the local land, NO GROUP can beat out a solid local militia.

A mainstream conservative view of militias

From: "The Myth of the Menacing Militias" :

"Some writers have suggested that the Hutaree arrests should rehabilitate the reputation of the Department of Homeland Security's infamous report on right-wing extremism. But if anything, these splits on the right highlight the central problem with the paper. In the words of Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union, the DHS document focuses 'on ideas rather than crime'; it was concerned with extremism itself, not with violence, and it gave no sign that you must be violent to meet its definition of 'extremist'....."

"....You can see such a mindset at work in the SPLC's watch list. You can see it in press accounts that blur still more boundaries, so that there seems to be little difference between a terror cell and a Tea Party. You can see it in documents like the Department of Homeland Security's report. You're even beginning to see it in legislation. Late last month the Oklahoma House voted 98-1 to amend a bill that, among other provisions, increased the penalties for recruiting new gang members. Under the revised legislation, the same penalties would befall recruiters for unauthorized militias...."

read the whole thing here.