The Cartel Civilization

This gem from Matt Taibbi (and the announcement that the Dept. of Justice chose not to criminally prosecute a British bank that admitted to laundering billions for drug cartels) slipped by me in December. 

Wherever our opinions fall regarding the issue of the "War on Drugs," we ought to pay attention to the implication of the DOJ's decision to treat as a civil offense these bankers' cartel-coddling, while possessing even a seed of marijuana could mean years in prison for you or me. The upshot?

"They're now saying that if you're not an important cog in the global financial system, you can't get away with anything, not even simple possession. You will be jailed and whatever cash they find on you they'll seize on the spot, and convert into new cruisers or toys for your local SWAT team, which will be deployed to kick in the doors of houses where more such inessential economic cogs as you live. If you don't have a systemically important job, in other words, the government's position is that your assets may be used to finance your own political disenfranchisement." -Matt Taibbi

 Read on, cogs...

Counter? I hardly knew 'er. (Questioning a current theme)

Anyone else interested in the Big Picture, where addressing violence is concerned?

The momentum to curb violence in our nation built after recent mass shootings, with the Media busy, as usual, taking its opportunity to spin the discussion in directions that preempt rational consideration in order to polarize (and divide) the People. Whether they frame a position as absurd to make it less popular, attack the individual rather than the argument, or claim a topic is sacred to avoid its exploration - the Media are equipped with tactics the Public fails to recognize. 

I thought it important to fact-check what our elected representatives and (failed) Fourth Estate, have asserted lately and to counter a few points so prevalent in our current gun control debate. Here are a few fallacies used in the discussion on gun violence.  

...and a little Background...

This article analyzes mass shootings in American as far back as the 1930s and presents interesting bases for relevant discussion:

"The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.
Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.
So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?"

As well, it is extremely important to understand that observable studies show that greater gun ownership is inversely related with higher levels of violent crime. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy presented an analysis concluding that:

."...The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world." - Kates & Mauser

 With that said, let's explore the possible actions the executive is looking to take.

State Sovereignty Shuffle (or... "Came and Took It")

Article: Texas vs. TSA - Round 1 goes to the Feds.

 ...Now, I imagine many of (the five or six of) you who read this won't see the conflict in the federal government putting its foot down on Texas outlawing the TSA's invasive pat-down procedures. By now, we are conditioned to accept that the Federal Way is the golden standard. A state that chooses to operate differently is painted as a collection of yokels or militia men who should be considered either incompetent to govern themselves or dangerous to our grand Nation's democracy.

But when Texas' House voted 138-0 to pass a bill banning TSA searches "without probable cause," the federal government's reaction was to exercise its authoritarian authority. U.S. Attorney John Murphy told Texas

...the feds would have to respond by shutting down Texas airports as it “could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

...a blockade? Really?

History, help me out. Something in this whole threat of a transportation kibosh sounds familiar....

This is Not a Test

Among the unbelievable heap of events and developments piling up all at once, there are a few that I'd like to highlight. These are structures or programs whose impending intent is to gain control over large groups of people by using either fetishes, fear, or guilt to pry open the grip we still hold on our natural freedom.

* The first:
Google I/O 2011: Google wants to control your home - May. 11, 2011

 

"Connected devices like home media equipment, dishwashers, cars, and lights could soon be able to be controlled using the new platform....The chief obstacle to making that happen across all connected devices is finding a single, open standard to control everything you own," said Joe Britt, head of the Android@Home team.

Eric Holland, a vice president of LED manufacturer Lighting Science, added: "The advantage of Android@Home is that any developer can write an application to control the lights. They don't need to learn any proprietary protocol... one app could control fixtures from all participating lighting companies... Robots powered by Android smartphones and tablets were wandering around the conference... 

"Soon, you may be using your phone to interact with all the devices in your home -- whether they beg you to or not." 

Yeah...Where my Texians At? Woo-woo!

I awoke with a start this morning. Having just squeaked open a sliver of eye to suss out the source of the vibration beside my face, I read a text message from my mom: "Happy 175th Texas Indy Day!!" Dang, yes. 

Blindsided again by March 2nd. 

The state of the Republic of Texas today turns 175. That's right I said "Republic of Texas"... did I stutter? Well, to be fair, many of you may not be Texas-born-Texas-bred. That means you weren't fortunate enough to have (at least) three years of Texas History cranked into you before high school graduation. So is it fair to say, you may have missed some things? 

I'll take that as a "Hell yes! Tell me more!" With that, I bring you the first in a series of Texas education catcher-uppers I like to call: "Texas: Don't Hate - Imitate." You're welcome, in advance.

Oh, So That's Food Security?

Let me be clear: guns are just not interesting to me. Nothing about them is so sexy that it lures me away from a reasonable discussion about their merits and dangers.

In fact, back home in the great state of - well, you know where - I've had enough debate with gun-promoting, boot-bearing male counterparts to be labeled a "hippie" (well... that and all the organic farming ...and tree-hugging ...and membership among the Great Unwashed).


But that citizens are willingly turning in their guns is, frankly, shocking.

The Austin Police this week accepted around 400 guns from people in exchange for gift cards to grocery store, ranging from $10 to $200. It shocks me because, not only did people surrender their arms because they "weren't using them," they yielded them directly to the authorities.

Police trade groceries for 400 guns: kxan.com