who's your nanny?

OMG! There Are Soldiers Who Enjoy Killing People? What Is the World Coming to???!!!

Via David Kramer at the LRC Blog I found this article at the Rolling Stone about a group of U.S. soldiers who killed civilians and took pictures of their mutilated corpses as trophies (warning-the photos are very graphic). The Pentagon issued an apology today for the photos: 

The photos published by Rolling Stone are disturbing and in striking contrast to the standards and values of the United States Army.  Like those published by Der Spiegel, the Army apologizes for the distress these latest photos cause.  Accountability remains the Army’s paramount concern in these alleged crimes.  Accordingly, we are in the midst of courts-martial, and we continue to investigate leads.  We must allow the judicial process to continue to unfold and be mindful that the government has distinct obligations to the victims and to the accused, which include compliance with the court's protective order to ensure a fair trial.  That said, the Army will relentlessly pursue the truth, no matter where it leads, both in and out of court, no matter how unpleasant it may be, no matter how long it takes.  As an Army, we are troubled that any soldier would lose his ‘moral compass’ as one soldier said during his trial.  We will continue to do whatever we need to as an institution to understand how it happened, why it happened and what we need to do to prevent it from happening again.

Notice that the Pentagon apologized for the photos. There is no apology for killing civilians. In fact, the Pentagon is quick to assert that its soldiers are innocent until proven guilty:

We must allow the judicial process to continue to unfold and be mindful that the government has distinct obligations to the victims and to the accused, which include compliance with the court's protective order to ensure a fair trial.

No surprise there. Moreover, if there were no photos, there would be no court martial nor investigation into any crimes. There would just be "collateral damage". Nothing for the American public to concern themselves with.

However, what I have found interesting is there are still people in this country who are shocked, disappointed, and saddened that American soldiers would act this way. Unbelievable! After Abu Ghraib where American soldiers took degrading pictures of prisoners? After Guantanamo Bay where prisoners were tortured by CIA officials? After the Apache helicopter attacks in Baghdad where American soldiers gunned down several civilians and even joked about the murders? After all of these public war crimes there are American peole who are stunned that American soldiers would take pictures of dead civilians? What world are these people living in? Soldiers are trained to kill people. That is their job. Our government spends millions of dollars removing the natural inhibition many humans naturally possess that prohibits them from killing other humans who have posed no threat to them so that they will be efficient killers. Do these Americans think that all soldiers hate their jobs? That they just tolerate murder as part of the job description? What nonsense on stilts!

Of course there are soldiers who enjoy their jobs, i.e., killing people. Some people are attracted to the military because they know that they can kill people and get away with it. Thus, we should not be surprised that some soldiers take trophies of their kills. I suspect that there are more trophies out there that we simply do not know about yet.

It's Easier to Join the Mafia than Become a Congressman

Here's Stefan Molyneux on the futility of using the democratic process to change the State.

 

IRS to Taxpayers: "F*** You, Pay Me!"

The IRS has written an 84-page report "debunking" common arguments against paying taxes. There is no need to waste your time reading it. It's all bullshit. Yes, that is a strong claim considering that I have not read this propaganda nor will I waste my time with it. Nevertheless, there is no need to spend time reading the IRS's arguments when this one truth is clear: the IRS will beat you, jail you or kill you if you do not pay up. It's that simple. This 84-page report is simple equivocation because the agency cannot be so forthright. The State must walk the fine line of ideology; a candid admission of its motives might alert the people to the truth that they are being robbed and enslaved.

It does not matter how rigorous your anti-tax argument is. It does not matter if your argument is rooted in the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. It does not matter if you think that that 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. It does not matter if the word "income" does not appear in the 16th Amendment. It does not matter if you can cite court decisions that demonstrate the 16th Amendment does not refer to income. None of this matters. As long as the IRS is willing to kill and the American people are willing to submit, your choice is to pay taxes or be destroyed. The IRS is just like the mob when it comes to money: "Fuck you, pay me!"

We Want to Control Pain Without Creating Addicts?

This comes as news to me, but according to a report in the Buffalo News, the state of Washington cares about its addicts. It's setting out to "prevent excessive prescribing of narcotic painkillers."

In what will almost certainly result in even more limited administrtion of painkillers to patients who actually need them, the News synopsizes the program thusly:

Washington State's tougher measures will not apply to cancer pain, end-of-life care or acute pain after an injury or surgery. Instead, they reflect the growing array of state, federal and medical industry actions to grapple with an epidemic of addictions, overdoses and deaths arising from more liberal use of prescription narcotics for chronic ailments other than cancer, such as back pain.

It won't be easy.

Actually, this is probably the easiest thing imaginable. The answer is weed. Marijuana. Grass. Mary Jane. Reefer. Ganja. The herb.

The problem is, politicians and bureaucrats aren't actually interested in helping anyone but themselves or the monstrosity they spare no expense to defend and empower (using other people's money, of course) -- the state. They are the rulers. We are their bitch lovers. Get used to it.

Admitting that marijuana is unique in that it is by far the safest effective painkiller on the planet would mean ending the state's War on the Nonviolent. It would mean laying off almost 11,000 DEA agents. It would mean allowing peaceful human beings to profit from the drug trade as much as select politicians and their doting counterparts in the pharmaceutical industry.

It's a political issue, yo.

And yes, weed is also the preferred choice among cancer patients and those suffering through their final days. But we'll just keep that at secret. You know, at any expense.

Two Common Defenses of the TSA

I have noticed that there are two common defenses of the TSA in the comments sections of articles on TSA abuses. One common defense can be summarized as the "scaredy-cat" defense. These are people who are convinced that the TSA is necessary because "we are fighting evil Muslim terrorists who want to kill us". The second common defense can be summarized as the "polite oppressor" defense. These are people who argue that the TSA agents are polite, respectable, and professional while directing them through the scanners or performing enhanced patdowns and that such behavior means that the anger directed at TSA agents is unwarranted. Fortunately, it seems to me that the majority of commenters are anti-TSA and some are rabidly hostile to this agency. This is a welcome development given that when I began writing about the TSA in 2009, most commenters defended the agency. Nevertheless, there still exists a surfeit of morons in the U.S. so we should continue to expect justifications for the TSA by these people. But let me say a few words about both defenses.

You Got Knocked the #*$& Out!

I finally saw the video of the 15-year-old defending himself from a bully. I was reminded of Craig knocking out the Debo at the end of Friday. I don't think Casey has to worry about anyone picking on him again.

Tax Day Is Almost Here

Time to start up the tax propganda bandwagon.

No Comment

Rarely am I left speechless on politics, but given everything that I have read about the Obama administrations "unprecedented war on whistleblowers" (h/t Glenn Greenwald), I really cannot think of anything to say about this.

"You Don't Have to Fly"

I have discovered during my almost three-years of being libertarian that there are topics that I cannot discuss affably. The police and the drug war are just two examples. However, I discovered over the weekend that I must add the TSA to this list. During a conversation with a really good friend over the weekend, the TSA came up for discussion. I related the story of John Tyner who was arrested trying to leave the airport after refusing to be groped. Her reply was that he didn't have to fly. This sent me into a profanity laced-tirade in which I believe I sounded like a cross between Tupac and Malcom X (yes, we are still good friends). After calming down some, I could see my friend's point: given that scanners and pat-downs are part of the airline experience, the only way to realistically avoid them is not to fly. This is simply the reality of our situation.

Nevertheless, the very fact that we are subjected to such humiliation as we exercise our right to travel is utterly infuriating to me. The response "you don't have to fly" is the usual retort from TSA apologists, but their response assumes that the TSA is a legitimate institution. It is not. The TSA a group of violent thugs who have the impudence to argue that their actions are "for our protection". Their actions would be considered criminal if it were not for the fact the agency has been sanctified by the State. They have arrogated to themselves the right to search our persons and possessions whether we consent or not. They are willing to violently enforce their rules against anyone who dares protest or even chooses not to fly once entering "the security zone". The agency has essentially argued that once a passenger enters "the security zone", he must complete his journey through security. Otherwise, he will be arrested and considered a terrorist suspect.

The argument "you don't have to fly" to avoid being scanned and gateraped is like telling black people living in the South during the early 1900s "you don't have to live here" to avoid being lynched and threatened. It was certainly practical for blacks in the South to move away to avoid the KKK, but the KKK had no right to kill and terrorize blacks. It is certainly practical for us not to fly to avoid porno-scanners and gaterapists, but the TSA has no right to scan us and grope us in the first place.

Is America a Police State?

Christopher Elliott at The Washington Post is investigating the claim that the TSA is indicative of an American police state. Here's an excerpt with several points of view on this topic.

As she waited for her flight from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Medford, Ore., last month, Linda Morrison noticed something unusual in the waiting area.

"A lady in a TSA uniform came over, put on her rubber gloves and went up and down the rows of seats, choosing bags to go through," remembered Morrison, a retired corporate recruiter who lives in Seattle. "She didn't identify herself, didn't give a reason for the search. She seemed to be targeting larger carry-on bags."

Morrison was stunned. She expected to be screened at the designated checkpoint area, or maybe at the gate, where the TSA sometimes randomly checks passengers as they board. But this was different. "To me, it just felt like an illegal search performed by a police state," she said.

There's that phrase again: police state. It's being thrown about a lot more since November's pat-down/opt-out fiasco, as public anger over the TSA's new security measures remains high. Which makes the question of whether we're traveling in a police state, or something like it, worth taking seriously....

I decided to put the police state question to an expert on repressive regimes. Mariam Memarsadeghi is a Washington-based human rights activist. "It's absurd to liken the annoyances brought on by airport security to life under a police state," she said. "A police state is defined by perpetual fear - fear of a state apparatus that is incessantly watching over the actions of people for the sole purpose of maintaining its power over them."

Memarsadeghi notes that the threat American air travelers face isn't from the government but from international terrorist networks.

So maybe the term "police state" isn't quite right, then.

James Morrissey, a University of Illinois biochemistry professor and a frequent air traveler, prefers "intrusive security." "TSA has become a law unto itself, and it routinely tramples the civil rights of the flying public," he says. "Unfortunately, there will always be some people who will be perfectly okay with having their rights trampled in the name of security. But allowing this to happen is very disturbing to me."

Jeff Stollman, a security and privacy consultant in Philadelphia, thinks that "annoying" better describes air travel in 2011. He's irked by what he calls "security theater" that offers no real protection against terrorism. "I suspect that a lot of the current controls don't really do that much to improve security," he said.

Matthew Gast, a technology writer who works for a San Francisco-based publishing company, believes that it doesn't matter what it's called - it's wrong. The TSA has gone "too far" in trying to protect us from terrorism. "I have not taken a flight since I was forced to allow a TSA agent to put his hands down my pants," he said. "It's the only time I felt unsafe in an airport."

The Term "Hypocrite" Doesn't Quite Do It

Yesterday the White House held a conference on bullying. Brad Spangler at Center for a Stateless Society made the following comments about this farce:

At a White House meeting on the topic today, the Obamas launched the web site StopBullying.gov — taking a laudable, if inconsistently held, stand against bullying. Seldom before has so much irony been encapsulated in just the URL for a site alone. Any state — defined by mainstream political science ever since Max Weber as “a monopoly on the use of force” — is institutionalized bullying. To stop bullying is the anarchist agenda in a nutshell.

Today I found this email on the Stop TSA Scanners from a passenger who was harassed at the airport in Tampa by the TSA:

Hi - I am writing this from the Tampa Airport. Today at 3:30 pm I noticed some people were being directed through the metal detectors and some through millimeter wave. I asked if I could go through the metal detector. The TSA person immediately escalated and read me the "law" about refusing millimeter scanning at the top of his lungs. He then made me stand aside while my laptop, wallet, watch and luggage went to the other side of the belt. I waited 5 minutes and asked when I was going to be searched. They had no answer. Others were going through the metal detector at this time. Finally they took me to the other side and then "informed me" how intimate this search would be. I was then subjected to a very public, and very lengthy feeling over. Clearly this was all to make an example of me to the rest of the public that this is what happens to trouble makers. I'm 48 years old, bald and was wearing a corporate shirt from a trade show here in Tampa. I've been flying all over the world. This is the worst treatment I've ever experienced. It was rude, hostile and completely unwarranted for asking a simple question. I do not trust the millimeter scanners. I'm going to have to think through my need to travel by air if there truly is no option but to subject my body to untested waves or to be publicly humiliated as an American in a public airport. I'm so angry right now I had to find a place to vent. You came up first. I intend to give you money when I get home. Thank you for listenting and trying to protect our constitutional rights.

That the Obama administration could hold a conference to stop bullying while the TSA (and FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, DEA, ATF, FTC, FCC, SEC, etc.) constantly bully and harass Americans everyday demonstrates to me that the terms "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy" do not actually describe the behavior of this administration or our rulers in general. Hypocrites are conflicted people. They know deep down inside that their behavior does not match their professed moral code. This is why, for example, gay pastors who preach against homosexuality keep their behavior on the down low. Hypocrites feel remorse when they are caught doing what they profess is immoral.

On the other hand, our rulers blatantly and openly violate the moral codes they boldly profess. In a recent example, Hilliary Clinton made a speech at George Washington University condemning governments that arrest protesters and do not allow free speech. During her speech a veteran simply turned his back on her while she was speaking. He did not attack Clinton. He did not verbally interrupt her speech. He quietly protested. He was arrested and beaten by Clinton's guards. And Clinton kept on speaking as if nothing were happening.

The term "hypocrite" implies that if we could only reveal to the hypocrite his contradictory behavior, he would realize the err of his ways and change. I don't think this would ever happen to our rulers. I don't think calling them out on their behavior would compel any of them to feel guilty about their behavior. I think a better term to describe our rulers is "sociopath". Jack Douglass describes sociopaths as follows

Complete sociopaths lack the basic moral and cognitive compass of humanity. They are not all Satans who murder little children and their mothers day after day, year after year, as Bush and Obama have been doing. But they are obviously non-human sociopaths. The mere bodily appearance of mankind and the mental abilities to respond as IBM’s Watson routinely does are not sufficient to be a human being. A human being must have those, though the physical appearance is a minimal one, so they are necessary. But they are not sufficient. A human being must have the heart and soul, the basic morality, and integral consistency of human beings in general. These sociopaths who routinely destroy societies and murder and steal with total abandon and spy secretly on everyone and betray and lie with total abandon are not human beings. They are more like the evil zombie erstwhile people in science fiction movies who look and talk like human beings, but are really doing so to deceive people so they can steal their lives and societies, or reprogram them as zombies through the central planning of education or brain implants, or murder them to take over their lands, They once were human beings, but they have been totally possessed by the lust for power and by greed and blood lust—the love of destruction and murder and torture and destruction of real human beings who still have human hearts and souls and minds.

I think that this is an accurate description of the ruling class. Without any direct divine intervention, I don't see the hearts of these men and women changing. This is the inevitable outcome of absolute power. It corrupts absolutely. This is why the State cannot be controlled or limited in any substantial way. It will inevitably grow as its power corrupts its agents. The only hope for us all is the complete abolition of the State and all its works.

The State As Computer Virus

A couple of weeks ago, my computer was hit with a virus. This virus presented itself as anti-virus software. A pop-up message appeared saying that my computer was under attack and I should purchase this special software to regain access to my programs. The only website I could access was the anti-virus software webpage that would accept my credit-card number, which I did not provide. I immediately took my computer to some IT specialists. Unfortunately I had to have my hard drive bleached and had to reinstall my operating system because the virus kept replicating even after the IT folks had thoroughly cleaned it.

I then realized that someone has created a virus that perfectly mimics the State: It causes problems and then presents itself as the only solution to the problems it created.

Everything's a 'Threat' to a Police Officer

Driving to work this morning, I was listening to the morning crew at DC101 talk about how you should never pull behind a cop who's pulled over someone you're caravanning with. They mentioned that even if a spouse or friend had been pulled over, they'd just continue driving and meet later at their destination, or if anything, pull far ahead off the road or into a shopping center.

In literal terms, no, you should probably never pull over behind a cop if you know what's good for you, because everything is a "threat" to the police and they seem to look forward to any excuse to let us know it. They can initiate unnecessary force by detaining harmless motorists, but it's us who pose the threat. Laughable in the extreme, but that's the world we live in.

Anyhow, this reminded me of an encounter I had last weekend while following my wife home after picking up her new car in Annapolis. She was pulled over right in front of me -- apparently her new car didn't come with one of them fancy speedometer things -- so I pulled over behind the police officer. For starters, the guy cut me off in order to swing behind my wife, so I was a little pissed to begin with. However, unsurprising to most readers of this blog, I would assume, there was no way I was not going to witness this event. I have a video camera on my phone and I keep a tape recorder in my truck at all times.

Within seconds, the officer looked in his rear view mirror and motioned for me to pull back onto the road. He did this three different times before I gave him the "Who, me?" while pointing to my chest (What? They're only allowed to fuck with us?). I complied and pulled maybe 50 feet ahead and parked on a dirt side road. I watched with a little anxiety as the officer walked up to my wife's window, and hurriedly texted her to remind her that her cousin is an Annapolis cop. I then tried to call but it went straight to voicemail.

While the cop was sitting in his car running my wife's information, and unsure of whether she'd received any of my messages, I got out of the truck to walk to my wife's car to tell her in person. The cop jumped out of his car and said, "Sir! Get back in your vehicle!" At this point I was wondering if he was going to pull his gun, but obviously I again complied and wandered back to my truck.

For the record, at this point in time I was much more pissed at my wife than I was at the cop. I can't stand government police, but my wife is fully aware that I'm completely opposed to further funding the state's coffers with speeding ticket revenue. I don't like speed limits any more than the next guy, but I generally drive within their confines while plotting any number of ways to move to Turks and Caicos.

After the cop returned my wife's papers license and tracking registration information, we went on our way. My wife called me immediately and told me the officer let her off with a warning after she told him that the car was brand new and she didn't realize how fast it was going. Personally, I would've ticketed her ass if I were him, but he was probably a half-decent guy. The pathetic thing was that I'm sure my wife didn't know how fast she was going (story of my life). But she did admit she was aware of the speed limit decrease in the area in which she was pulled over, so her honesty probably helped her there.

Anyhow, before he left, the officer told my wife to tell me that you should never pull behind a cop or get out of your car if you happen to find yourself in the situation I did (if you're not looking to have a little fun at the cop's expense, that is). He said it's considered an "act of aggression" whenever someone gets out of his car. Because, you know, I'm sure I posed a mortal threat in my shorts and flip flops as I walked casually toward my wife's car.

The irony here, of course, is that you'd most likely be hard-pressed to find a police officer who would admit the same -- that all officers initiate true acts of aggression and pose the real threats whenever they forcibly detain anyone who has harmed no one. And while I maintain that this cop was probably one of the very few remaining decent guys among so many vile thugs toting government badges and guns, would it kill them to do a little introspection and ask themselves why some people must want to kick their asses these days over something as stupid as routine traffic stops?

If You Want to Know How the U.S. Government Deals with Threats to Its Legitimacy...

then follow Bradley Manning's unjust imprisonment. Glenn Greewald (TMHLOE) has been following his case from the beginning and continues to report on Manning's oppressive treatment. Here is a summary of Manning's treatment from Greenwald's latest report:

Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months:  23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view.  Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will?  As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.

The treatment of Manning is now so repulsive that it even lies beyond what at least some of the most devoted Obama admirers are willing to defend.  For instance, UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who last year hailed Barack Obama as, and I quote, "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" -- wrote last night:

    The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning’s health that it is subjecting him to a regime designed to drive him insane. . . . This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent.

Of course President Obama is aware of this. But we should keep in mind that this is the same administration that still has not closed the prisons at Guantanamo Bay, will not prosecute any CIA agents who tortured terrorism suspects under the Bush regime, and is trying to legalize the assassination of American citizens at the president's discretion. Clearly this president and his administration are not going to treat a solider who leaked U.S. Government misfeasance to the public with any human decency.

If Only Americans Would Realize That They Are Slaves ...

I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves. Harriet Tubman

One of the many frustrations I have experienced when discussing libertarianism with non-libertarians is that many non-libertarians really think that they are free. They believe that the rules our masters command us to obey are for the good of society and that the taxes they pay are necessary for society to function and are voluntary. They do not even use the same vocabulary as I do to describe their relationship to the State. The masters who dictate every aspect of our lives are "politicians who are looking out for our well- being". These politicians might make mistakes, but we can always remove them from office if we do not  like what they are doing. The police, the FBI, DEA, TSA, are not thugs who beat us and kill us to enforce their masters' laws and for their own sadistic pleasure, but "they are all patriotic servants who protect us and keep us safe." They might violate our rights, but we need to give up certain rights to stay safe. Thus, the trade-off is fine in the minds of my non-libertarian interlocutors.

A clear contrast to our situation is the recent upheaval in the Middle East. In several countries including Egypt, Baharian, Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya the people have figured out that their rulers are the problem. They are demanding change and resisting the tyrants. However, here in the U.S., only public workers in Wisconsin have risen up to demand that they continue to feed off the productive class in Wisconsin. They have portrayed themselves as oppressed workers fighting for their rights when in reality they are beneficiaries of the oppressive taxes that burden the true producers of wealth. And many of these producers of wealth actually empathize with the protesters.

So how does one go about convincing the majority of Americans that the State is their enemy, oppressor, and master when they see the State as their friend, protector, and servant? How does one make the majority feel the sense of violation that I feel when going through airport security? How do I share the fear I feel when I find myself in the presence of police officers? How might I persuade the non-libertarian to empathize with my anger at the State for telling me how I should use my own property? I have no answer at this time and honestly I don't think that most statists could ever be convinced that they are being ruled. Certainly some people will feel as I do after having repeated contact with State agents. The frustration and humiliation of dealing with State agents have converted many people to libertarianism. I am convinced that the seeds of my radical thought were planted the first time I was ever pulled over by the police. Even if I weren't a libertarian today, I'm pretty sure I would still despise the police.