Thursday, May 30, 2024

V*ting for candidates isn't a good idea


It's a good thing I don't v*te. I was never very good at it. And I still wouldn't be. 

For one thing, I just can't get past that "no one has a right to govern another" thing.

My observation is that no one is good at v*ting, but some people imagine they are. Or they feel they have to, anyway, and hope for the best.

Hope for the best... But, in the case of some-- or most-- candidates, which version of them do you believe is the real one? 

In the past, they would say one thing to one group and another thing to a different group, and there wasn't too much danger that anyone would catch the discrepancy. They were more free to lie to court the v*ters by saying what their audience at the time wanted to hear.

Video seems like it would have put an end to that, but it didn't. For instance, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Trump has become a respecter of the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without government permission or oversight, even though he seems to be trying to make this claim. I think he's lying when he suggests he is in favor of "gun rights".

Today, in addition to historical-style pandering to whichever group is listening at the moment, they can also say things as part of their official platform that seem opposed to things they have posted on "social" media in the past. Which version is their real self, reflecting their actual opinions? You'll never be sure.

Maybe the "social" media posts were their past opinion, but they've changed their mind. If that's the case, might they change again once given power? Or was it just a lie all along? It's not worth the risk.

Even if giving someone the power to govern others was legitimate, you could never be sure what someone would do with that power. 

You don't need anyone to run your life or to run society. And neither does anyone else-- even if they don't want the responsibility to run their own life. Too bad. You own you and it's your responsibility anyway, even if there is some clown called "The President" lording his power over your life.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Is it just me, or is the legislative climate heating up?


It seems to me that government is desperate, and getting more desperate with every passing day. 

The political criminals are making up "laws" at a dizzying rate, flinging them at the wall and hoping some of them stick. Especially where firearms are concerned. It looks like a frenzy to me.

This may be good news for liberty in the long term, even if it makes things worse for the near future.

They are desperate to make you into a criminal so that the NRA-types will agree you should be disarmed. 

As Ayn Rand observed, "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." The complete quote is worth reading if you haven't.

 Once you see it, you'll get it.

"Breaking" or ignoring counterfeit "laws" can be dangerous, but it's never wrong. It's sometimes essential. People who make up "laws" are sickos. Don't let sickos run your life, even if it's sometimes necessary to dodge them and their hired goons.

The line between being a slave and being a martyr can sometimes be hard to walk, but I recommend giving it a shot anyway. 

I'm hoping this situation will be temporary-- although 6 thousand years so far doesn't feel temporary to the human mind. Maybe this legislative desperation is a sign their cult is starting to crack up. I can hope.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Government "self-defense"


Murder vs self-defense. It's odd how many people get confused. Often this confusion happens when individuals are involved, but the confusion is nearly universal when discussing governments.

Governments never engage in true self-defense. Governments have no rights because they are collectives, so they can't have a right to defend themselves. When a government-- or those acting on behalf of a government-- kills people, it's always murder.

If Government A murders a bunch of people, so Government B kills a bunch of people in reaction, it's murder. Murder committed by people acting on behalf of Government B.

A lot of people are OK with this, or even enthusiastic for it. This is why the world situation is such as it is.

The populations of the world should be armed sufficiently so that if Government A sends murderers (or thieves, vandals, rapists, or any sort of archators) to harm them, the individuals targeted can act in self-defense and kill (or otherwise decisively thwart) the thugs doing Government A's bidding. If Government B prevents this with anti-weapon rules, Government B is complicit in the crimes of Government A. Both governments are equally evil and responsible.

You might complain that this isn't the world we live in, but by pretending it's OK, that governments can kill in self-defense or prevent individuals from owning and carrying the most effective tools of self-defense, you are guaranteeing a stupid, deadly situation will go on longer than it otherwise would. Anyone contributing to this twisted status quo isn't helping.

Government is a murder machine. The lie of government self-defense is the ammunition it uses.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Monday, May 27, 2024

Biased cops are WORSE than useless

The recent incident I mentioned, where I observed that cops are useless, may have gotten even worse.

I need to share more details to make this make sense.

On the evening in question, my sister's house was breached by a car. The police showed up and treated my sister and sister-in-law as the problem, not the 23-year-old who, with a couple of girls in tow, crashed his car into their home. 

He hit a mailbox on the other side of the street, then executed a nearly 90-degree turn to go directly up their driveway, through the support column between the doors of their double garage, totaled my sister's car, and crashed into the inner walls hard enough to shatter them, push them inward a foot or so, and destroy half of their kitchen and utility room. 

There are marks on the garage floor where he spun his tires in reverse trying to make a getaway, but was unsuccessful since his car was stuck in the walls and against my sister's car. He also begged the first people on the scene to not call the cops-- I guess he thought no one would notice if he left the scene and abandoned his stuck car.

Fortunately, since my sister and sister-in-law had gone out to eat, no humans were home, and their cats all managed to avoid injury. And only one of their cars was destroyed.

The young guy's family seems to be politically connected. His mom was friends with one of the cops who responded to the scene. The guy wasn't given any sobriety test. Nor was he given any sort of ticket for the wreck; only a warning. My sister found an empty vodka bottle on her lawn near the garage after the accident, but it may not be related-- I had her bag it, but she'd already handled it. He either claimed his steering wheel locked up and he couldn't steer, or that he was distracted because he was changing the radio- the story the cops told my sister the night of the accident is different from the one on the police report. I'm wondering if this is because the car could be tested to see if the steering wheel had locked.

The contractor who came to look at the damage gave a rough, preliminary estimate of $70,000+ in damage to the house, and that doesn't count the totaled car. Or, I suppose, the property inside the house that was destroyed.

My sister-in-law wants revenge/legal punishment for the guy. I told them justice would be for him to pay for all repairs and related expenses resulting from his actions. The injured parties should not be out a single cent.

At least the guy was insured, but they expect a fight. Since he and his family have connections in town, and the police have already shown a clear bias against the victims, it may be an uphill fight.

They spoke to a big-time lawyer in town, one who has held several political offices as well. It turns out he knows the family well and has represented the guy's mother. So he's out as an option, even though he had initially been very excited to take the case, until the police report was finally available and he found out who the driver was. So they've been looking for another attorney, in Albuquerque and other cities in the region, hoping to avoid more friends of the guy's family.

As much as I hate dealing with cops, lawyers, bureaucrats, insurance agents, and such, I would be completely miserable if I were in their shoes. A billion dollars for stress and emotional damages wouldn't cover it.


-

Thank you for reading.  

Sunday, May 26, 2024

Extra rights for some don't exist

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 26, 2024)




If a police officer has the right to do something-- anything-- so do you. If you don't have the right to do it, then no one does. Not police officers, CIA agents, bureaucrats, or presidents. A job or a position can't create extra rights; there's no such thing as an extra right.

This is hard for many people to accept because those who benefit from the fantasy of extra rights work hard to brainwash the public into believing it...read the rest...

-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Saturday, May 25, 2024

Refuse to act as though others own you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 21, 2024)




To say I’m skeptical of the institution of government is an understatement. If individuals make bad choices, a collective of people with an incentive to do bad things and very little chance of being held accountable-- unless they anger some opposing faction within this institution-- won't do any better. Quite the opposite.

Organized evil is worse in every way than disorganized incompetence.

It doesn't matter if this institution has been around "forever". The same excuse was used to justify slavery. A long history and public acceptance can't change wrong into right.

Eventually, humans will see little difference between chattel slavery and the belief that anyone can have the right to govern another. Some of us see no difference now. What's the difference between ownership and control? There isn't one. since control is the defining characteristic of ownership. If someone controls you, the reality is they are behaving as though you are their property. If you go along, you are agreeing with their counterfeit claim over you.

Maybe you're scared to be fully responsible for your life. Too bad. You are fully responsible anyway. Acting like property can't erase responsibility. If someone orders you to do something, you are still accountable for choosing to do it. You always have the option of refusing to comply, which, in many cases, is the only ethical choice. It can be hard; it is dangerous. Not accepting responsibility for your life is dangerous, too, but the danger may be hidden from view.

Taking responsibility is good for you, even though you will make mistakes. It's the only way to grow. Trying to avoid responsibility by saying it's someone else's job harms you.

I'd rather suffer the consequences of my own mistakes, and learn from them, than watch rulers making mistakes which I know, through experience, will hurt me and others, but am powerless to prevent.

Legislation is one of the most common attempts to avoid responsibility. An attempt to assert ownership over others. It treats the population like stupid children, so how do you think they'll behave?

I want you to exercise your liberty muscles. To take responsibility, and refuse to act as though others own you. I want you to own your mistakes and celebrate your victories. I want the institution of government to fade away from disuse once enough of you realize how harmful it has always been to society and the individuals who comprise it.


-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Cryptocurrency for Dummies by a Dummy


I am far from an expert on cryptocurrency. Some of you undoubtedly know more about it than I do, and you can correct me in the comments where I got something wrong or if I missed something. If I've got it all wrong, I'm sorry. I probably should have read up on it before writing this, but I didn't/

Off the top of my head, here's how I think it works, at least with regard to Bitcoin:

All crypto transactions are recorded on the blockchain; a large mass of computer code going back to the first transaction and kept in such a way that any fudging of the code would leave obvious traces that would be noticed by those who keep track of it. Since it is spread among millions of computers, any messing with the blockchain would show up as a singular discrepancy and the other computers would recognize it as fake.

The blockchain gets continually updated by computers doing crypto "mining", which is just logging the transactions and verifying them by seeing if other computers agree to the details. 

After a set amount of computer work doing this, the computer's owner is rewarded with a specific amount of crypto. Since there is a set limit to the amount of Bitcoin that can ever be created, every so often (I think it has generally been every four years or so) the amount of Bitcoin paid for that amount of work gets halved. This way there's still Bitcoin to mine. Since the price of Bitcoin keeps rising, this doesn't mean mining it "pays" less in value than it used to. You may get less Bitcoin for a reward in 2024 than you would have in 2012, but the dollar value of Bitcoin is so much higher that it's still worth it. (I don't mine Bitcoin, because it takes a dedicated computer set up for that.)

Since all the blockchain is held simultaneously on all the computers doing the mining, you could wipe out 99% or more of those computers and the blockchain would still exist. As long as at least one computer still contained the blockchain, the data could be shared with more computers and it would be widely distributed again. 

There is no "head" for government to target or control. 

Because all transactions are recorded, and stay recorded, as part of the blockchain forever, I don't think it's as anonymous as many would like to believe it is. Especially since most of the ways to spend it leave a trail. As with all things, protect yourself in all that you do.

Is it real money, and is it worth using?

Fiat money exists and has value because government promises to keep stealing from the population into eternity to keep the money worth something... something you can pay its extortion with. Governments can print/create fiat money without limit, inflating away its value (as we've been watching happen). As long as people keep accepting it in trade, I'll keep using it in spite of the negatives of being attached to the state. Using fiat money isn't capitulation that government is necessary or good any more than driving on government roads means you believe without the state, no one could build roads.

Gold and silver have value because they are pretty and useful and durable, and people have always been willing to accept them in trade. There doesn't have to be an objective reason. They can't be readily created from cheaper materials so the supply is set (unless a gold asteroid falls to Earth or the cost of creating gold in a particle accelerator drops enough that the cost of making gold is less than the price of gold). I admit I have a visceral reaction to gold and silver coins that I don't have to other forms of money. I enjoy the feeling of them in my hand and in my vision.

Cryptocurrency exists as computer code, complete and whole inside each of the untold millions of computers keeping track of it. Bitcoin has a set upper limit to the amount that can ever be created- and lots of it has already been irretrievably lost over the years (mainly when it wasn't worth enough to keep up with). All of this makes it non-inflationary.

All money is subjective. You aren't required to accept or use any of it, with the exception of fiat money being imposed by force by The Ancestral Enemy. All money has pros and cons. One pro for crypto is how badly governments hate it and what it represents.

I personally like crypto. I have used it to buy gold, silver, guns, and gun accessories. I bought someone else a television as a gift. I have used it to pay expenses, which isn't as much fun. As long as crypto works as money, I'll keep using it. I trust it for what it is, and I don't think I have unrealistic expectations about it or its supposed anonymity.

You do you.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Friday, May 24, 2024

Not progress


I get little update emails from a crypto business. Generally, I find them informative.

In yesterday's email, though, they were celebrating the possibility of more legislation. They said, "The journey to getting effective legislation and regulation passed in the US has not been an easy one..."

They are complaining that the gov has been committing evil without the benefit of legislation so far, "...the Securities and Exchange Commission appearing to regulate through enforcement in recent years." OK, that's obviously wrong of them to do. 

The solution is to get gov out of it, not to give them another doorway in.

Cheering this kind of development shows a lack of brains.

I love crypto. I'd like to see it go "to the moon". But not if this is what it takes.

The last thing crypto needs is "effective legislation and regulation". It needs liberty. Don't kill the good thing because you hallucinate a need for government oversight. Don't embrace a bad idea because you feel something worse might be inevitable otherwise. No compromise. Give me liberty or else.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Turning normal into "shocking!"


To me, it is very strange that the simple act of carrying a gun has been turned into something that so many people see as sketchy or unusual. Something to raise an eyebrow about or to question. Or, even to consider shocking.

In reality, it's no different than drawing breath or wearing pants. Anyone trying to make it into something else is doing so as an excuse to violate you.

We are expected to believe it's something governments and cowards can legitimately control in others. That's absurd.

How did it get to this point? How did something so natural and normal get dishonestly reframed as controversial? 

It's not that guns became more dangerous, although liars with an agenda to enslave you would love for you to believe they have. 

It's not that the average gun owner has become more dangerous. There have always been irresponsible and criminal people among the population. There used to be acceptable ways to handle them without blaming the tool like a moron would do. Letting the irresponsible and criminal among us dictate what the rest of us are "allowed" to do is stupid and evil. Just don't.

I think the main change is that government has become more openly authoritarian/anti-liberty. Yes, even the most "pro-gun" politicians. Liberty is an existential threat to political government. Rights that government would prefer to violate with impunity get turned into "second-class rights"-- rights (or even privileges) with a giant "but" and all sorts of justifications for not respecting them. There are no "but"s. 

The media has, at the same time, become more pro-government-- as long as government suits their biases and is working toward the same odd, anti-human goals. Once upon a time, most of the media would have hesitated to be so staunchly and enthusiastically in favor of slavery. The dishonest ones will object to being painted with this brush today, but they are 100% pro-slavery when they call for "common sense" anti-gun legislation. Or any at all.

The majority of people have been brainwashed by governmedia into believing "safety" rules, and those crime gangs which enforce such rules, protect them. After all, for some weird reason, that's the fantasy the mainstream media and government want people to believe. It makes no sense, except that it does give politicians more power and wealth, and it encourages political criminals to give the media more access and head pats when the media carries this water for the state.

Carrying a weapon isn't sketchy or unusual, nor should it be even slightly controversial. It's a perfectly normal, natural act. And even if it becomes unusual due to pressure from the bad guys who want to destroy the exercise of this fundamental human right, it's something you ought to do anyway. Just because you exist, you're alive, and you're human. Even if it shocks those who hate you and want you unarmed.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Evil has planted a flag


At the local park, there is the obligatory monument to victims of government human sacrifice. Above it flaps the flag that serves as a reminder that government doesn't care about those it can't account for during or after it has used them for its power and glory.

For a while now,  rather than a standard Holy Pole Quilt flying over these reminders of how stupid and evil government is, there has been a Cowards' Swastika flag on the pole.

What's up with that?

Generally, I only see these hideous abominations flying at the residence of a Blue Line Gang member, or the house of a rabid copsucker. I don't remember seeing Cowards' Swastika flags in public spaces that aren't specifically claimed by cops.

I don't know who oversees the human sacrifice memorial or the pole quilts that flap above it. I also don't really care enough to ask around. But this seems to be an escalation of the war against liberty. Evil has staked a claim by planting its flag.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Those email lists


I'm on a lot of email lists. From groups I never wanted to get emails from. They can still be educational.

Most of them are telling me to ask Congress (or other lawgiver institutions) to "strengthen" this or that "law" (legislation) so that some horrible thing will be averted. Often for the children, the environment, or democracy. I'm not buying it.

Sometimes I ignore the email. Sometimes I unsubscribe. Occasionally I reply and tell them what I think of their nasty anti-liberty demands- and then unsubscribe. I'm sure they never read the emails I send, even when the email address isn't listed as "unmonitored" as so many are.

Even when I kinda, sorta, agree with their point, I don't agree with the way they are going about it. I'm not going to beg government parasites to make up more legislation. That's just so low.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Monday, May 20, 2024

Firsthand observation: Cops are useless


The past week has been both eventful and interesting. Not in good ways, but it could have been worse.

One of those various interesting events, which I was on the periphery of, involved EMTs, firefighters, and cops. Through direct observation, it highlighted the differences between those careers in a way no mere speculation can.

The EMTs checked for potential injuries and were prepared to do more if necessary. Fortunately, everyone was OK. The EMTs seemed competent and useful.

The firefighters did what it took to make the scene safe and stable to prevent people from being injured by further consequences of the event. They worked hard and fast, and did a good job of helping.

The cops, on the other hand, were very condescending and unhelpful to the injured parties; they treated the victims like they were somehow guilty of causing the problem. One obviously had some sort of friendly relationship with the mother of the person who caused the incident, which colored the way he treated the injured parties. The other cop was more neutral, but still did nothing but prepare to make a report, and then told the damaged party that the incident report would be available when it's available, probably in 5 days. Both stood around while more useful people actually did things to help, and got in the way more than most of the gawkers did. A crackhead could have done better.

When I've said how awful police are, I don't think you quite understand how utterly useless they really are. If they do anything, they are more likely to make matters worse. The best you can hope for is that they don't.

Yes, insurance companies foolishly require you to deal with these badged parasites, but that just means insurance companies aren't as useful as they could be. An on-scene insurance investigator would do better-- one from each of the involved parties' insurance companies would probably be ideal. Unless there were freelance investigators who were unbiased and could contract with competing insurance companies to write an objective report, which would probably be better. Almost anything would be better than allowing police to be involved and "in charge" when problems occur.

Depending on police to do a necessary job is a failure to do things right.

Pretending that police are essential is a denial of reality, and it cripples society in multiple ways. Defund the police? Not just that. Abolish and denounce that criminal gang!

-
Thank you for reading.  

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Note to railroad: Be a good neighbor

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 19, 2024)




The problem of the railroad crossing between Texico and Farwell has a logical solution. The various plans floated by state transportation officials aren't it.

The logical solution is for the railroad to be raised over the highway...read the rest...

-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Saturday, May 18, 2024

Do your best regardless of mistakes

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 14, 2024)




In last week's column, I said government had made up a new holiday and superimposed it over Easter. I suggested this may have been done as an intentional slap in the face to a major segment of the population. Intended to provoke a reaction.

I was wrong.

Government made up that holiday-- or official declaration-- and set the annual date for it back in 2009. The only reason I heard about it this year was because it coincided with Easter, which generated the outrage that then caught my attention. This outrage was based on a mistaken perception.

The perception was wrong, but the effect this perception had was real. I saw it and heard it from real people.

Now that I know this holiday wasn't something new, I'm neither outraged nor excited. Just add this one to the long list of holidays and government declarations I will continue to ignore.

If a holiday isn't centered around a solstice or an equinox, a planting or a harvest, or some event from the distant past I consider noteworthy, I don't care about it. Groundhog Day, and the goofiness surrounding it, is the exception. I especially dislike all holidays government makes up to memorialize a person or to recognize a group. All of them. I don't care how long some of those government holidays have been around, they feel artificial and forced and I don't care about them. I never celebrate Presidents' Day.

These manufactured "holidays" seem manipulative. Every made-up government holiday smells like a sneaky attempt to buy votes. Prove me wrong. This is my perception, just as it was the common perception this year that government had intentionally made up a new holiday to supersede a traditional holiday.

For better or worse, in every case, perception beats reality. At least, in the effect it has on people.

Just look at the effect belief in government as a legitimate, concrete entity has on people. They build monuments to it, in the form of office buildings. They give up life, liberty, and property because of this mistaken perception. Worse, they'll violently take life, liberty, and property away from others based on it. They sacrifice individuals to this false god. It's disgusting.

Do your best to make sure your perceptions match reality. You'll still sometimes make mistakes, as will I, but this way you'll never end up on the side of the bad guys.

-
I couldn't do this without your support.

What if they DO understand?


I'd prefer to attribute harmful actions to ignorance rather than to malevolence. But, in my post about things statists don't understand, readers made the point that they do understand; they choose to do the wrong things for evil purposes; to steal money and liberty and let others suffer the consequences.

I'm afraid my readers are right.

I want to think people wouldn't willingly choose to commit evil, but evidence shows that they will. Readily.

And all those things I listed in that previous post are harmful. Each has a better way than the one statists insist on imposing. And if they know it, this means they are choosing to harm people to advance their agenda, which is also harmful. That's the definition of evil.

Statists-- government supremacists-- choose to commit evil. All because evil aligns with their beliefs and what they want. You can't have political government without choosing to commit evil against your fellow humans.

Make better choices.

Reject evil. Embrace liberty.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Friday, May 17, 2024

Me vs USPS


Thursday I nearly got into a fight with the local postal manager/supervisor. As she antagonized me in the post office, I kept Wilson's USPS experience in mind. I don't need a nasty gov employee telling lies about me making threats I didn't make.

But I was getting angry.

First, a little backstory. This is a small town. No stoplights and no home mail delivery. If you are to get your mail, you must go to the post office to pick it up. The post office insists that every piece of mail have your P.O. Box number in the address. If not, they threaten to send it back. Many companies say they can't send things to a post office box for "security" reasons. Thus we have a problem. If I get it at all, and unless UPS or Fedex drop it off on my porch, it will come through my P.O. box, no matter how much those companies don't like it.

We have the additional problem that sometimes UPS drops off our packages at the post office for them to deliver. And if UPS doesn't put the box number in the address, the Post Office will snap. On us, not on UPS.

For years, the post office has nagged local residents about telling everyone who sends us mail to put the PO box number on the mail. We do, but it often doesn't work. Often, even if I put the number in my address, the sender will drop that part. I can't control that.

I also pick up the mail for 3 households, meaning it isn't in my control what others do with their addresses.

Which brings us to Thursday.

My parents had a slip in their box saying they had mail to pick up at the counter-- 4 packages. I took the slip to the counter, gave it to the woman, and told her the box number I was picking up the packages for. 

She got them off the shelf and as she carried them to the counter she started complaining because the packages only had the street address on them. I said I was sorry. She asked if I knew how long it took her to look up the box numbers? (I guess she's unable to use a computer database.) She said she has other things to do and looking up addresses takes time she could be using for other things.

I said I was sorry, but this was my parents' mail, and that I have also had trouble with businesses that won't put the box number in the address. I said I do keep trying, though.

She stepped it up a notch. She said "Everyone else manages"-- which I know isn't true because I've talked to, and overheard, many people having the same issue. I was trying to stay civil and said I understand, but sometimes companies don't listen, and that a lot of times, no matter how many times I've added a box number to my address, it doesn't get added on the address label. She just got ruder.

She started lecturing me on how to write the address so that companies will include the box number.

I already do this-- I write it like 123 Street St., Box 321-- because I've noticed that if you include "PO" anywhere on that line, it will often get left off. Or outright rejected. So she told me you can also list your name like John Smith 321, because "you can use anything for a name".

The trouble is, my parents' packages were medication, and the insurance company sent it to the name on their records. You can't just add numbers and expect them to be left in place... if you can figure out how to add them in the first place.

She was getting more hyper about it, and I noticed her apprentice/helper had stepped out to watch the interaction.

Through it all, I kept saying I understood her problem, but that I have no control over what address format companies use, especially not for mail sent to my parents. That I do my best, but it doesn't always work.

She just got ruder and ruder. Kept telling me that if mail doesn't have the box number on it, it will just sit on the shelf for 20 days and then she'll send it back. I said "Go ahead." I was done with her rude attitude. I was starting to shake a little due to adrenaline, and I'm betting she could hear it in my voice.

My thought was that this is her JOB, and if she doesn't want to do her JOB maybe she should find a different one. I didn't voice this opinion, but I was thinking it rather loudly.

As I walked out the door, she said "Have a nice day", but with contempt in her voice.

Government employees can be the absolute worst, because there are no consequences.

When I got to my parents' house with the mail I told them what happened, so they called the online pharmacy to have the box number added to the address. They supposedly added it to my dad's address, but said it was already part of my mom's address (but it wasn't on the label). They claimed they will make sure it's part of the shipping address from now on.

We'll see.

And if not, we'll see if postal cow changes her attitude next time. I think I have a package coming in the next few days. That will be a joy.

I filed a complaint. too. This sort of thing has gone on too long. So, if I get SWATted...

-
Thank you for reading.  

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Statists don't understand


Statists don't understand economics or inflation.
They don't understand how (and why) cops cause crime.
They don't understand rights.
They don't understand legislation.
They don't understand how foreign meddling creates enemies.
They don't understand anything they want to regulate or ban.|
They don't understand simple language.
They don't understand human nature.
They don't understand history.
They don't understand the difference between the state and society.
They don't understand why free speech matters, or what it is.
They don't understand ethics or morality.
They don't understand physics or science in general, or how science works.
They don't understand democracy.
They don't understand how children learn or what inspires them.
They don't understand liberty.
They don't understand much of anything that matters when people live around other people.
They don't understand why people chafe under their control.
They don't understand government.

This list isn't close to comprehensive. The list of things statists don't understand, but think they should be in charge of anyway, is staggering.

And, despite this monumental lack of understanding they've built their entire government-supremacist edifice upon, I'm expected to let them run my life?
I don't think so.

I'm better off taking care of myself. And so are you.
I understand that you're better off making your own mistakes.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Cops are ethically required to die to avoid violating rights


The more information that comes out about that cop who murdered the guy who came to his door holding a gun, the worse it shows the cop to be.

Everything about that incident is horrible. 

The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn't even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone's rights. Don't like it? That's easy: Don't be a cop.

The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn't adequately announce himself-- but even if he had it wouldn't have made a difference because in that case, it's either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It's a no-win situation for the good guy.

Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.

That cop needs to be exposed.
He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of "tax" money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.

Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I'm opposed to revenge,,. so...

There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him.
The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn't a cop with a gun merits immediate death.

Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Analyzing the world around us


I can't look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I'm looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly-- that's a separate issue-- but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.

To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I've even found some people who have the opposite reaction. 

For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren't too far into the first episode when she said "Dad, that's you!"

Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.

Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can't argue that my mind isn't analytical, though.

It's why I'm not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don't hold up. 

It's why I'm not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun.
It's why I don't automatically believe "climate change" is a crisis.
It's why I wasn't susceptible to COVID fearmongering.
It's why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe.
It's why I don't care where someone was born, only what they do.
It's why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that "we" would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.

Since I can't look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what's going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that's a bonus.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Monday, May 13, 2024

Fighting crime with crime?


The solution to crime isn’t more crime. It’s not more government, which is a criminal organization. It’s not more legislation, more stringent enforcement, more cops, harsher punishment. Raising "taxes" can't solve crime. All those things are crime in the real sense. 

Those things aren't going to make things better for the non-criminals among us.

I understand the concept of fighting fire with fire. This isn't that. 

This is "fighting fire" by burning all the firetrucks, dumping all the water into the ocean, and throwing all the firefighters down a well where they can't be of any use, while hiring more arsonists and nihilists and expecting them to make things better.

It's insanity.

The real solution to crime is liberty. It always has been and always will be. No matter how many career criminals claim otherwise.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Gun (owner) rights foundational to liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 12, 2024)




Why do I keep returning to the natural right of each and every human being to own and to carry guns? Because when it comes to liberty, unless you get that right, you'll get everything wrong. 

This right is non-negotiable, along with the right to free speech, freedom of association, and the right to own and use property. Anyone on the other side, or trying to keep a toe on the other side, is a danger to you...read the rest...
-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Saturday, May 11, 2024

Don't fall for government provocation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2024)




Is government trying to provoke you? I believe it is. It's setting a trap.

If, by doing provocative things, government can trigger you into acting, your actions become an excuse to crack down harder- which will trigger more people to act. Like a feedback loop.

It's part of the reason for anti-gun legislation. It's part of the reason the two main factions of authoritarians love the fight over the issue of "immigration". It's why the real solution to crime is criminalized.

It's why government officials decided to paste a divisive new "holiday" over a traditional religious holiday, as if no other days were available-- a slap in the face to a significant number of believers. Doesn't this look calculated to anger and divide?

Government needs to divide the population; it needs excuses to destroy any remaining shreds of liberty. They do things to you, hoping to cause a reaction giving them the excuse they need. Don't hand them another 9/11.

You may believe I'm pretending to read their minds. No, I'm watching their actions. The effect is the same regardless of their inner thoughts. They do things which anger you; if you react, they have an excuse to cancel you from public life or even make you a political prisoner.

They want-- they need-- to get a reaction they can use against your remaining liberty. If you believe they wouldn't do this, you don't understand the history of political government and those who seek to use its power.

This doesn't mean you have to take it. It means being smart enough to know government is a failed system on borrowed time. No one has the right to govern another. Nothing can create this imaginary right. Going through the motions in spite of this tears society apart by destroying the lives of individuals.

The best solution is for you to stop supporting "your side" and stop complying with "their side". Don't go along. Withdraw all support for any politician or political theater. Ignore them as much as possible. Stop making them relevant to any part of your life, your opinions, or your economic future. Starve them out by making them irrelevant. You don't need to rebuke or renounce them-- they're not that important. If you can't walk away cold turkey, wean yourself. Grow liberty, not tyranny.

Whatever you do, don't get drawn into a fight which will only empower them. It's probably what they want most.

-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Just say "No" to government efficiency


There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker  

Things such as v*ting, governing others, spending “tax” money, registering vehicles, writing legislation, etc. 

I don't want government to be more efficient. I don't want the IRS and its tax code to be more efficient. I don't want murder to be efficient and industrialized. I want everything government does to be difficult, expensive, complicated, messy, and screwed up. I don't want government to have a more efficient way of enslaving the population. I want them to be hated on the path to being eliminated.

I really don't understand those who advocate for government efficiency. If they mean to govern, I want it to hurt and inconvenience people enough that they will stop tolerating it. I want the population to want to get rid of the things that violate human rights, not make government work more smoothly on less money.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Friday, May 10, 2024

In which I fail as a detective


This is a little morbid, but someone (not me) wanted to go to the park to see where those women were murdered last week. So that became Wednesday's field trip.

I followed the directions to the crime scene (from the public reports), knowing that people aren't generally great at compass directions and that sometimes "authorities" intentionally give incorrect information to misdirect people coming to gawk at a crime scene. (People like me, I suppose.)

The information from the cops said it happened 100 yards north of the pond closest to the entrance. It said the bodies were found beside a minivan. 

At the scene, I saw there was no way a minivan could have been north of that pond-- or even sort of north-- unless it was airlifted in. So, incorrect information. But which information is incorrect? Location? Or the presence of the minivan? Was it even this pond? There are 2 other ponds in the park (near roads), but they are considerably farther from the entrance. 

Working on the shakey assumption the pond indicated is the right pond, I scanned the area. 

About 100 yards directly west of that pond, right beside the road, where cars regularly park (I've parked there in the past), there was a strange spot in the dirt. The surface looked artificially "weathered". Completely different from any other surface conditions anywhere around, and different from any natural surface conditions I have ever seen in my extensive time outdoors.

A spot maybe 6 feet across looked scoured. Like high-pressure air-- coming from one direction-- had been used to blast away the top inch or two of dirt. It almost looked like pressurized water had been directed at the surface, but there was no run-off in the area beyond, where you would expect to see such a thing if water had been used. And there has been no rain here in the past week or three. Alternatively, the marks could have been made by a horizontally spinning brush like a vacuum cleaner brush.

I tried to search for information on how an outdoor dirt crime scene is cleaned of blood (probably not the best thing to search for-- Hi, NSA. For future reference, I don't murder people). I wasn't able to find any useful information before I stopped looking.

Do any of you know if either of these methods is used to clear away the dirt under and around a crime scene as a standard practice? I keep trying to think of any other explanation for the marks I saw in the dirt and I'm drawing a blank. This spot may have nothing to do with the crime, anyway. Maybe there's another reason someone scoured the ground in that spot. But why?

I have strained my eyes looking at the one photo (possibly from a drone) taken of the cops on the scene after the bodies were discovered and nothing adds up. It doesn't appear they are in the right location. Things are obviously not as reported. It may not have even been at this particular pond. After all, government lies. 

Also, I have never once had first-hand knowledge of an event which made the news that was, in my opinion, reported accurately. So there's that.

If you're interested, here's an update on the guy who was caught with the child taken from the scene.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Thursday, May 09, 2024

Bag or Sack?


My opinion of Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, copsucking, tax-addicted, nationalistic, anti-gun bag of crap.

My opinion of Joe Biden is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, child-molesting, tax-addicted, racist, anti-gun sack of crap.

And people tell me I must choose between a sack or a bag? No, I don't. 

And I would never support anti-gun Robert F. Kennedy Jr., either.

Every v*te hurts

-
Thank you for reading.  

Wednesday, May 08, 2024

Limit your exposure


Exposure to statists and their insane notions can be bad for your mental health.

If those notions are put into action, they can kill you.

They think they are terribly enlightened. "Adult". Pragmatic. What they are is a disease of society. The more statists, the sicker the society. At some critical mass of statism, society ceases to be. All you're left with at that point is politics. The ideology of the stupid and/or evil.

Yes, I allowed myself to be exposed to too much statism over the past few minutes, and I'm feeling the ill effects. Time for an infusion of liberty.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Statism relies on ignore-ance


I'm sure you've seen it many times. 

A statist will ask what they believe is a gotcha question. The question is then answered fully, rationally, and completely, but instead of actually seeing the answer, the statist refuses to acknowledge an answer was given. At this point they either go into an endless time loop, asking the same question that has already been answered over and over again, repeating "why won't you answer the question?", or they'll pivot to something else they believe is a gotcha question. Studiously ignoring the answer that was provided in response to the original question.

Ignore-ance is willful ignorance. Carefully maintained by closing off reality when it is shown to them.

It's not something you'll cut through. It's something to pity. The good thing is, it's basically an admission that the statist understands-- on a subconscious level-- that they are wrong; on the loser side.

Without ignore-ance statism wouldn't last a day. Expect to see more of it as statism crumbles.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Monday, May 06, 2024

How could this have been prevented?


Friday afternoon, the bodies of two women were found in a park I like to visit. One had been shot, the other's cause of death hasn't been released. A 5-year-old girl with serious injuries was found with them. Differing reports say the child might have been shot, beaten, or hit with a car. (They are now saying she was shot.) Also, her 10-month-old half-sister is missing. I'm hoping her body isn't in the nearby pond.

It might be unfair, but in cases like this, my first thought is always that they were probably involved in some activity, or with some individual, that led to this tragic outcome.

So far, in no local case I'm aware of, has this assumption proved to be wrong.

No, I'm not blaming the victims. I'm facing reality. They didn't deserve this, but their own choices might have played a part in it. In fact, it is almost guaranteed.

There have been times in my life when I knew I was around someone who wasn't good for me to be around, or when I found myself in social situations I knew could be dangerous for me. I usually got out of there quickly. Usually.

You can do a lot to increase your safety by staying away from certain people and situations. It's no guarantee, but it gives you better odds. 

It might have also helped had the women been adequately armed (which includes knowing how to use the arms). It certainly couldn't have made things worse for them, considering the outcome, regardless of the standard claims of anti-gun bigots.

The best way to use your keys for defense is to drive far away from bad people and dangerous situations. If that fails, you need a gun.

-

UPDATE: The baby has been found and taken to the hospital to be checked out, and a suspect is in custody.

-
Thank you for reading.  

Sunday, May 05, 2024

Don't let others' weaknesses control you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 5, 2024)




Everyone has weaknesses and faults. This includes you and me. We need to acknowledge our weaknesses and work on doing better. Your life will also be easier and you'll be a better person if you're tolerant of the weaknesses and faults of others. Up to a point...read the rest...
-
I couldn't do this without your support.

Saturday, May 04, 2024

Blind loyalty not a trait I admire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2024)




People admire different qualities in others. The traits each of us admires are shaped by our own values and experiences. What some see as a virtue, others see as a vice. Or worse.

It seems most people admire obedience-- they voice admiration for those who follow orders without hesitation. This isn't something I admire. Too much depends on who is giving the orders and what those orders are. This can include bad parents as well as people wearing uniforms or holding a political office. I can't excuse anyone for obeying when the orders are clearly evil.

History's worst atrocities weren't committed by the disobedient, but by those who thought obeying orders should be automatic. They were, and are, wrong.

Every order must be weighed against ethical behavior before being obeyed. A shout to "Duck!" is rarely going to have negative ethical consequences and stopping to think about it could be a problem, so you can make an exception there.

If you are obeying orders to violate life, liberty, or property-- such as an order to enforce illegitimate legislation-- then obedience is the opposite of doing the right thing. Disobedience is the only ethical path in this case.

The same could be said for loyalty. Whether loyalty is admirable or not depends on who or what you are being loyal to. Too many people are loyal to the wrong things and the wrong people. Their loyalty makes the world worse.

If you are being loyal to a group of rights violators, or to the other members of this group, your loyalty is a destructive force you are adding to the world. Being disloyal in this situation would be the right thing to do. This is nearly always going to apply to politics. Loyalty in politics shows you aren't thinking.

The only thing worse than the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. Sometimes it's the other way around. Neither party has earned your loyalty.

I notice both of these traits-- obedience and loyalty-- are encouraged by those who want to use people for their own purposes. When those purposes are political-- looking to violate life, liberty, or property-- the result is nearly always horrendous. At best, it's not helpful.

This is why I have never admired obedient order followers or those who express unconditional loyalty. I prefer those who can think, even when they cause a little bit of trouble by doing so.

-
I couldn't do this without your support.