Saturday, January 23, 2021

Saturday Snippet: Policing the Community

 

Last weekend I put up an excerpt from Adam Plantinga's excellent book "400 Things Cops Know: Street-Smart Lessons from a Veteran Patrolman".



It received a lot of attention and plenty of comments, both here on the blog and in e-mails from readers.  The latter included requests for more of the same:  so today, I'm going to post an entire (long) chapter from Sgt. Plantinga's second book, "Police Craft: What Cops Know About Crime, Community and Violence".



This chapter is titled "Policing the Community".  It's particularly important if we want to understand how cops feel when they're confronted by a rioting mob, as is routine in places like Portland, OR and Seattle, WA these days;  or when cops have to shoot someone, only to be accused of brutality or racism by local communities;  or they have to patrol neighborhoods where radicals have an anti-cop agenda.  It's a very tough job, and they have to walk a very fine line.  I have enormous sympathy for them.  (Yes, there are bad cops who give all the rest a bad name;  but there are far more good cops than bad.  We need to keep that firmly in mind, because the mainstream media won't report that.)

PROFANITY ALERT:  Sgt. Plantinga uses the F-word on occasion, because it's the sort of language he's describing from those whom police encounter.  I try to keep this blog family-friendly, but in this case I've left his language "as is", because it's the reality of the situation.  I encountered it myself as a prison chaplain.  I think the vernacular form of the verb "to copulate" is probably used in every second sentence on the prison yard, and on inner-city streets as well.  (And no, "copulation" does not refer to sex between consenting police officers!)


Now and again, a member of the community will call the police on the police. You’ll respond to a dispatched assignment and the citizen won’t like the way the conversation is going so he’ll get on his cell and ask for different cops. Dispatch will ask you if everything is all right, because another 911 call for your location has just been received by the telecommunicator. You tell Dispatch all is well. And you let the caller know that you sense his anger and frustration and you will renew your pledge to help him in the best way you can, but he had best get off the line unless he wants to be cited for 911 abuse.

Some callers won’t be satisfied with the police services you’re providing and will request an officer of a specific race. “I want a black cop,” they might insist. Now if a female assault victim wants a female officer, you accommodate her because it can help make her more comfortable and forthcoming. If it’s a translation issue, you find an officer who speaks the language. But other than that? You don’t do such special requests. Because it’s a police department, not a restaurant. You can’t tailor your order. You may not demand an athletic, bi-curious Tongan officer with just a tinge of rakish insouciance. As the old saying goes, which I sometimes use with my five-year-old, you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.

If the aggrieved caller wishes to file a complaint against you, they’ll demand your name and badge number, which you are required to provide. If the person requesting your information is drunk or high, some officers have been known to take a few liberties with this policy. You’d like my name, my good man? You bet. It’s Officer Nasium. Officer Jim Nasium.

One type of fellow who frequently asks for your name and badge number is a member of the community who holds a special place in the hearts of law enforcement. He is a white male, typically heterosexual, between sixteen and thirty years old. He is well-off, or at least his family is. He favors pressed khakis and designer golf shirts worn with the collar popped. His hair is artfully tousled. He is not battle tested, unless you count Twitter wars. A bad day for him is when his tennis racket comes unstrung. He probably drives a Fiat and he tends to get huffy if you pull him over, because stop signs aren’t for him, they’re for other people. He tends to lack perspective but ooze entitlement.

This storied individual is known in police parlance as a Chad. Because that’s usually his name, or something like it. It could be Lance. Trent. Damian. Blake.

Still confused about this terminology? I’ll use it in a sentence.

Cop 1: “What’s your victim like on the 9th Street robbery?”

Cop 2: “He ain’t much. Some Chad from Marin County.”

Not every rich kid is a Chad and, moreover, there’s nothing wrong with Chads per se. Their heavy reliance on styling gel and valet parking stimulates the economy. But when they leave their high-end laptop on the coffee shop table and go to the bathroom and are shocked when it’s stolen, you have to let them know that, sorry, we can’t call in the gunships and ground-penetrating radar. If you have tracking on that thing, we’ll do our best to run it down. We’ll check for video surveillance and put your serial number in the system, but other than that, you’re going to have to chalk it up to a loss.

If they don’t like the way things are going, Chads are known to invoke the lame standby “Do you know who my parents are?” The automatic cop response is “Excuse me, can anyone locate this young man’s parents? He does not know who they are.” Which is kind of lame in its own right. But you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Even worse is the “Do you know who I am?” question, which is still alive and kicking among the upper crust. Everyone from Reese Witherspoon to Alec Baldwin has trotted it out when stopped by the police. I’m not aware of it ever working. (“Dammit man, you can’t arrest him! He played Agent Nick Kudrow in Mercury Rising!”) However, there is one circumstance under which “Do you know who I am?” can potentially reap dividends. I’m talking about diplomats. It doesn’t quite go like in the movies where they can murder away with impunity. But if a diplomat commits an act he claims is performed in the exercise of his consular function, you can’t arrest him except in the case of a serious felony that endangers public safety. And if you pull over some ambassador and have reason to believe that she is blitzed out of her mind after a consular visit to the local brew pub, San Francisco Police Department General Order 5.13 essentially states that in lieu of a drunk driving arrest, you are to escort her back to where she’s staying and write a report that will later be reviewed by the FBI and the State Department. The bottom line is if you stop anyone who flashes fancy international credentials, you need permission to take police action and will end up setting off a string of phone calls that will run from your Special Investigations Division up to at least a deputy chief, which might mean calling them in the middle of the night, which I am told they do not care for.

In addition to celebrities and diplomats, another class of people vying for special protection these days seems to be United States college students. Quite a few viral videos of late show some college kid being arrested by law enforcement. There’s a violent struggle during which a young man is taken down and handcuffed and comes up bloodied. At some point, tomorrow’s leader proclaims, “But I go to State!” Yep, the public seems to think, there the police go, assuming everyone is a hoodlum and brutalizing all in their path. Look at that educated young man with the scraped-up face—de facto proof of police terrorism.

But what the police see is someone they have just cause to detain or arrest trying to pull away from them. Someone showing the beginnings of fight or flight. This is against the law. It’s called Resisting/Obstructing an Officer. If you don’t think the police are justified in stopping you, have your friends videotape the whole thing and file a complaint afterward. But if you resist the police, you are probably going to the ground. Hard. This is what police training dictates. A member of the public isn’t just allowed to ignore your lawful directives without consequence. Otherwise you’d just have a bunch of police out there shrugging and saying things like: “I tried to arrest him, but he pulled away and I was like, rats, there goes another one!”

When the kid cries out “But I go to State!” you search your brain for any blanket immunity from prosecution one receives upon enrolling in college, even a well-thought-of institution. And you don’t come up with anything. You aren’t high-fiving your partner because his face got scraped up. You are not in the pain game if you can help it. Moreover, suspect injuries, however slight, are just more paperwork for you and likely a hospital run.

Here’s some good news for all young undergraduates. There is a simple yet elegant solution to avoiding this fate and it is this: refrain from resisting arrest, especially whilst standing on hard pavement. Pavement hurts. And it is unreasonable to expect the officer to say to his partner, “Hal, we got a violent young adult on our hands. Let’s try to maneuver him over to that soft, dewy field I saw three blocks from here.”

Regardless, when the fight is over, you clean the university student up and guide him through the arrest process. Maybe he gets a few stitches. Perhaps he spends a weekend in jail. He is left with a painful lesson about submitting to just authority. See. You do learn stuff in college after all.


* * *


Professor Stephen L. Carter, in his magnificent book "Civility", holds that we can be civil without being familiar and cautions against the danger of saying the first thing that comes into your head. “Words are magic,” he writes. “We conjure with them. We send messages, we paint images.” Saying Please and Thank You to the public is simple but goes a long way. It can also be all too rare. Some officers mistake civility for weakness. And we aren’t always careful with our words. When the community says “Fuck You,” it’s tempting to respond in kind. But as the old aphorism goes, never wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty but the pig likes it. So you gotta take the high road. Because when you police neighborhoods where the citizens’ reaction to you ranges from mistrust to hate, the wrong word at the wrong time can be the spark in a mine full of coal dust. When you talk down to or outright goad a member of the public, be it a career felon or just some regular Joe you happen to find annoying, the damage is twofold. First, you have sunk to a level not befitting someone who is supposed to be a trained de-escalator and problem solver. Second, you have made the road tougher for both yourself and the next cop who works with that person. When you approach citizens and ask for their cooperation and you don’t get it, maybe it’s because you look quite a bit like the last cop they dealt with—same uniform, same gun belt—and that cop gave them the strong impression that he found their problems amusing. And then he called them “fucksticks.” The citizens saw inscribed on the side of that police car the words Integrity, Dedication, and Professionalism, but they weren’t shown even one of those things. As a result, when the police need help from the community, they’ll be stonewalled. That’s why one of key rules of law enforcement is this: Don’t Be a Dick.

The Don’t Be a Dick rule is also why you’ll find yourself performing various tasks that aren’t technically part of your job at all. Like helping a kid fix a flat tire on his bicycle. Or assisting an elderly woman with a blown fuse in her darkened home. Or taking phone calls at the station from senior citizens who are having problems with their credit or want to complain about the state of the world and public morals. This is why all across America desk sergeants are on the phone with citizens attentively sort-of listening to a litany of complaints that they can’t do anything about. “Okay, Mrs. Hargreaves,” the desk sergeant says. “I don’t quite understand those rollerbladers either. Thank you for keeping me informed. I’ll talk to you again next week.” My old Milwaukee partner Rolf Mueller (remember his name because I’ll be talking about him again) used to sweep up the broken glass caused by vandals, especially if the homeowner looked at all elderly or ailing. He’d politely ask for a broom and dustpan and then go to work, emphasizing the second word in the title Public Servant. No, you’re not a bike tech or an electrician or a member of a cleanup crew. It’s not written anywhere in your mission statement. But it is your mission to connect with the community. To build goodwill and a sense of trust. So in a sense it’s precisely your job. There are, of course, limits to this. “Go get me a beer,” an especially soused weekend reveler once demanded of me during a disturbance call. The beer remained ungotten.

Civility and good community relations call for giving the backseat of the patrol car a once-over before you give a citizen a courtesy ride home or take them to a crime scene to look at a suspect. You respond to a lot of assignments in the city, which cuts into opportunities for vehicle maintenance and beautification. This means that although you put a lot of gamey characters in the backseat, you also wash out those back seats infrequently. You want to avoid a “Hey! I think I just sat in piss!” moment with your citizen passenger.

Community relations also means looking professional but still approachable. So take the aviator shades off once in a while and limit the number of tough guy upward head nods to no more than three per shift. And if you put on latex gloves to search someone because you are wary of hep C and staph infections, the suspect you are searching will sometimes protest: “What, you think I got AIDS or something?”

The proper diplomatic response is “No. I’m trying to protect you from my germs.”


* * *


Community organizers concerned about police-society relations say officers should live in the kinds of black and brown neighborhoods they police. I understand why they say this and I believe it comes from a well-meaning place. And some cities have programs where cops can live in public housing for free or at a greatly reduced rate. The federal government has a HUD initiative called Good Neighbor Next Door that allows for teachers, firefighters, and police officers to receive a 50 percent discount on a home price on eligible properties in certain low-income zip codes provided they live there for a certain number of years.

It wasn’t part of any program, but I tried living in such a neighborhood for a few years when I was a Milwaukee cop. I was single at the time with no kids. I figured if anyone was to do it, it might as well be me. To call my experience a nightmare might be melodramatic, but not by much. I went in with honorable intentions. I thought I could add stability to the block. Maybe troubleshoot a few neighborhood problems. Generally be a force for good.

I was shockingly naïve.

The highlights of my stay included waking up to a gun-related homicide down the street, being surrounded by an angry crowd when I tried to break up a street fight off duty, and going to the laundry mat and coming face to face with a violent drunk I had arrested the week prior. The whole block knew who I was. I wasn’t trying to hide it, but it didn’t matter, because the toothless drug addict next door told everyone; I might as well have worn a blinking neon sign that said Cop. I became embroiled in a running conflict with the crack house across the street, which culminated in one of its occupants throwing the extension to a socket wrench at my head while I sat on my front porch. It whizzed past my left ear. I began creeping out my backdoor and crossing over the rear neighbor’s vegetable garden so the crack house wouldn’t know when I was home—it didn’t help, someone broke into my place presumably looking for my gun, which they didn’t find because, ironically enough, I always had it with me due to the wretched neighborhood. One night while off duty, I was flagged down by a man who said his sister was getting beaten up by her boyfriend inside their house—I responded alone even though I had no radio or backup—a foolish decision that I wouldn’t have made if I had been on duty, but somehow felt compelled to do off duty because, well, I was the cop on the block. A series of armed robberies close by had me walking to and from my car with my hand on my unholstered gun hidden in my front sweatshirt pocket, ready for close encounters. It was an extended period of danger both real and imagined, stress, hypervigilance, and unrest. I would spend all shift at work dealing with violence and strife and come home to more of the same. I looked over my shoulder a lot. I felt constantly under siege. Made it a bit hard to unwind.

I did, however, enjoy paying $375 a month for a three-bedroom apartment. As a guy living alone with low overhead, I didn’t have a lot of stuff so I used one of the bedrooms just to store my single raincoat. A raincoat storage room. I bet not even the Koch brothers have that. At night I would open my window and listen to people argue about unpaid bills, infidelity, drug abuse, and loneliness. It was the kind of neighborhood where the police had to fight the feeling to just let crime go, to battle the attitude that these people, in the end, deserved each other and the fate they had accepted or been dealt perhaps long ago.

Not all of my neighbors made me wary. Among them was Andre, the cheerful Frenchman next door, who shook my hand so enthusiastically when he found out I was a cop that I wasn’t sure if I’d get that hand back. He’d regularly invite me over for coffee and tell me how the neighborhood used to be better, some twenty years ago, before the dealers moved in. And I wasn’t in the same lot as those who lived around me. I wasn’t trapped there. I could have afforded to live elsewhere. And eventually I did. I have a family now, and our home is near a serene cul-de-sac far from the city I police. It’s an oasis away from work. There’s no chaos and little drama. People clean up after their dogs. They jog. They wave cheery hellos to each other. They take pride in their properties. In many ways, it’s the exact opposite of work. That’s why I like it. I feel my family is safe here. I want my family to be safe.

So this is just one man’s account of living in a rough neighborhood. Maybe another cop could pull it off. Maybe they wouldn’t have abandoned Andre as I did. But if so, they are forged of stronger stuff than me. As police officers, we are willing to put ourselves in harm’s way for an eight- or ten-hour shift, but when we’re off, we’d prefer to live in peace. There has to be some separation between the worlds of work and home. Otherwise, it’s liable to drive a fellow just past crazy.


* * *


The dissenting voice in society. Nothing could be more American. Protestors aren’t always right, and sometimes they fail to meaningfully advance the discussion and just yell a lot. But civil disobedience has created profound, lasting change in everything from women’s suffrage to civil rights, and if you think you’ve been marginalized, you’re gonna want to make some noise. However, if you are taking to the streets and clogging up traffic in support of a cause, especially if your demo is spontaneous and without a permit, allow me to present a modest proposal. It is this—have a point and a plan. A point is a clearly defined goal—get City Hall to change a policy, support a gay marriage amendment, rail against soybean tariffs. A plan is something like, we will march for thirty minutes, be peaceful, and stay off the freeways. Because if you have no point and no plan, you are just protesting for protesting sake. People are less likely to be drawn to your cause when you annoy the crap out of them by blocking intersections and spray-painting their property. You’ve just given them more reasons not to listen to you. And you are burning up a tremendous amount of finite police resources to swing traffic and prevent violence from breaking out among your ranks. Bet you’d be steamed if you got robbed at knifepoint and there were no available police cars to send to you because all units were tied up dealing with the gridlock, vandalism, and melees generated by the Occupy Anarchy Everything Sucks Demo.

Now, if you are a protestor who hates the police and everything about them, perhaps this argument won’t sway you much. But you know the kinds of people stuck in your manufactured gridlock who you may want to consider?

—Parents, especially single mothers, who are paying a dollar for every minute they are late to pick up their child from day care.

—People who are trying to get to a job interview on time.

—The sick, injured, and dying whom ambulances are rushing to the ER.

—Folks who really have to use the bathroom.

When you’re standing on line at an angry protest equipped with your long baton, your professional game face, and your riot helmet (which will start to smart after a while, like your head is wedged deeply in a metal waste basket), the protestors on the other side of the line—many of whom may not care about any particular cause but are just using a social controversy as a convenient hook to hang violence and looting on—will have quite a bit to say to you. Not much of it is a tribute. It’s a lot of this: “Fuck you, pig, you’re all wife-beaters, oink oink, bad cop—no donut, sucking at the public trough, faggot-ass cops, hope you all die.” They say these things both to express their heartfelt disdain for you and in hopes of eliciting a negative reaction from you. And you are not to respond. There’s absolutely no upside to it. It’s not the time or place for a civic-minded dialogue (you shouldn’t even point out to the protestor with a cardboard sign that there are two l’s in Orwell), and under those circumstances, even your most benign utterance can only serve to inflame a crowd that is already inflamed. You are there to keep the peace and facilitate their constitutional right to assemble and repeatedly call you vile names. That there is the police nurturing democracy.

But even given the whole sticks and stones philosophy, sometimes their rants can get to you. Some punk is in your face calling you worthless and commanding you to suck his dick and you’re thinking, hey, I helped catch a trio of armed robbers the other night and this week I solved an attempted murder case. What, pray tell, have been some of your own recent accomplishments, assface? And getting to level 38 of World of Warcraft doesn’t count. Let’s compare achievements and see who is found wanting. It’s a bit childish, but you do it anyway. And you can’t get in trouble, because it’s all in your head. Your thoughts, although exceedingly unprofessional, are still your own.

One thought you may wish to share with the protest community is that being disenfranchised isn’t a license to do whatever you want. You can understand the rage that stems from a divisive police incident and still hold people accountable for the crimes they commit during protests. But sometimes the chaos unfolding all around you reaches such a critical mass that your righteous indignation flames out and is replaced by something more coldly analytical. You’ll see a rioter coming out of a store with something that doesn’t make any sense, like three left shoes. Hey man, don’t you want to go back in there and get a right? If you must loot, do so properly.


* * *


Police-citizen community meetings are where the rubber meets the road, especially if the mood is especially testy between law enforcement and the public. Some supervisors will look frantically for a subordinate to send in their place.

“Kuchac, I need you to go to the public safety forum at the Santos projects tonight.”

“But lieutenant, I went to the last one …”

At such meetings, cops addressing a skeptical if not outright angry crowd will emphasize their roots, i.e., “I grew up four blocks from here.” Some familiar words words and phrases get trotted out. “Stakeholder.” “Gatekeeper.” “We’re working with our community partners.” “We’re working with the mayor’s office.”

If done right, community meetings can be an invaluable way of bridging the gap between the police and the public. A prevailing police weakness is our inability to seriously consider a point of view other than our own. The public might be wrong on some issues, or have unrealistic expectations of the police. But we have to listen to them. What was it that Atticus Finch said about really understanding someone? How you have to climb in their skin and walk around for a while? A lot of cops aren’t willing to do that with people. And a lot of people aren’t willing to do that with cops.

But if things go south, what you get is a free-for-all where everybody shouts, no one can understand anyone, and nothing gets done. The ugly irony is that protestors who (rightly) demand police accountability and transparency will attend these meetings and make it a point to drown out the cops with chants, name-calling, and boos so the police aren’t afforded an opportunity to demonstrate either accountability or transparency. The representative from the department usually tries to hang in there as long as he can. But there comes a time when there’s really no point in trying to make a lone voice heard in a cacophony. So he’ll leave.

“Yeah, fucking run away,” someone from the crowd will say.

Then the protestors will go to their websites and brag about how they shut the system down. Way to go guys, cutting that meeting short so everybody loses. Do you see how you’re working against yourselves? For your next trick, why don’t you go scatter antilittering pamphlets all over the town square.

One of the recurring themes at community meetings is the complaint about the over-militarization of law enforcement. And it’s true that the police don’t have to respond to every whiff of unrest with armored vehicles and long guns with scopes, because it can make us look less like public servants and more like shock troops. But this anti-militarization movement has its limits. Like when citizens say, “Why do those cops have helmets and shields? That just incites the crowd.” Don’t know about that. Most crowds seem to have a way of inciting themselves on their own just fine. You like your shield and helmet because it can stop a brick or bottle from knocking you unconscious. You hate being unconscious, especially in the midst of an angry mob. How about this tentative social compact—stop throwing dangerous shit at our heads and we’ll lose the helmets.


* * *


As a cop, you are out there to serve everybody equally with dignity and professionalism. From the stumblebums to the Chads to the male hipster with a Faux Hawk, gauged ears, and iridescent green shoes whose name is Thistle. You don’t have to necessarily understand them all, mind you. Just serve them.

But serving them requires getting out of your patrol car. Your relationship with folks must be more than being their arresting officer. Police departments organize toy drives, deliver food to elderly shut-ins, and referee youth sports leagues not just because it is right to do so but because it lets the police have positive contact with the citizens we serve. The societal problem does not exist that the police can buckle down and arrest our way out of. These issues are too complex, too entrenched. A guy I know on the Milwaukee Police Department used to aggressively pursue street hoodlums, and once he nabbed them, he would just as aggressively try to help them find meaningful work.

“Get a job with UPS, man,” he’d say. “They got clean uniforms. They teach you how to lift boxes right.”

I don’t know how successful he was with this approach, how many jobs were obtained, and how many were held down for any length of time. But regardless of the statistics, he understood that the police aren’t just in the crime-fighting business. We are also in the business of housing anytime we take someone to a shelter or refer them to Homeward Bound, which can provide a bus ticket for a stranded traveler to go home. We are in the education business when we go to schools to read to students. We are in the mental health business when we approach someone in crisis, assure them that they aren’t in trouble and we’re there to help, and transport them to an assessment center where they can be stabilized.

There are cops, especially old-timers, who resent these additional duties and bristle at being labeled anything that sounds even remotely like “social worker.” But if you’re serious about leaving your patrol sector just a bit better than you found it, you better get used to it.

Even when you do all you can to bridge the gap with the community, you’ll still occasionally return to your patrol car after completing an assignment and find one of your vehicle windows punched out or your door awash in graffiti, like “SFPD sux dix.” You’re irritated at the vandals. What a bunch of dix. But you know what never gets vandalized? That’s right, fire trucks. They remain immaculate, even gleaming, thanks to the frequent hose-downs by the fellas at the station house. And if they did ever suffer graffiti, it would probably be something tasteful, even honorific like: “Metro Fire: could they be any more courageous?”


* * *


In terms of bridging the gap, on my last day as a police officer before I was promoted to sergeant, my partner and I were on the unit block of 6th Street and I encountered a man I’ll call Mike. Mike was a man in his late fifties, a constant on the corner, usually drunk, although not so drunk that he couldn’t warn the drug dealers we were coming. He would occasionally threaten to kill me, although it was hard to tell because he always mumbled. I told Mike I was leaving to become a sergeant. He mumbled something. Then I took out a pack of Newport Lites that I save for suicidal jumpers and reluctant witnesses. I gave him one and had one myself. We sat at the corner and smoked.

“Hey,” I said. “You remember all those times you threatened to kill me? What was that all about?”

Mike just smiled his mysterious smile and kept smoking as we continued to broker an uneasy peace. For just a moment, the gap felt bridged.

But although Mike doesn’t quite crack my top ten list of favorite community members of all time, one of the slots on that list definitely goes to Ms. Vickie Williams-Tillman, a fifty-six-year-old woman from Baton Rouge. In the spring of 2017, she was listening to gospel music in the car on her way to Sam’s Club when she saw a man repeatedly striking a Baton Rouge police officer in the head with the officer’s baton. Williams-Tillman called the police and then jumped on the attacker’s back, helping fend him off until other officers arrived. She hurt her wrist in the process.

“I could see in his eyes he needed help,” she told a reporter. “You don’t have time to think about it … I did what God needed me to do.”

Thank you, ma’am. I will be sending Ms. Williams-Tillman a copy of this book. Plus a gift card to Sam’s Club.


Thought-provoking and intense.  I recommend reading both Sgt. Plantinga's books.  They're worth your time and money.

Peter


Friday, January 22, 2021

Heh

 

It's always surprised me how "grammar Nazis" or "spelling Nazis" complain bitterly about the smallest mistake in a book, or a blog article, or whatever.  They won't cut us any slack at all.  It's as if any errors the author(s) make are somehow deliberately intended as a personal insult to them.  They're not, of course, but you can't persuade them of that.  They can (and do) wax vitriolic.

That being so, I laughed out loud at Stephan Pastis' "Pearls Before Swine" cartoon yesterday.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the comic's Web page.



Gigglesnort!  Thanks, Mr. Pastis, on behalf of beleaguered writers everywhere!


Peter


"In order to maximize compliance in a population, maximize their dependence"

 

That's the core sentence in an article by Jeff Thomas, who looks at the long history of oligarchy in the USA, and how it's now grown to the point of openly overriding the will of the people to take over the government.  He believes it'll soon progress to international organizations overriding national governments.  I'm not sure about that, but he makes a compelling case.


For many years, a handful of people have postulated that those who control industry, finance and governments are essentially the same people – a cabal of sorts that have, over generations, solidified their relationships in order to gain greater wealth and power, whilst systematically making things ever more difficult for the free market to exist.

But why should this be? Surely, corporate leaders are more ardently capitalist than anyone else?

Well, on the surface, that might appear to make sense, but once a significant position of power has been achieved, those who have achieved it recognize that, since they’ve already reached the top, the primary concern changes. From then on, the primary concern becomes the assurance that no others are able to climb so high as they have.

At that point, they realise that their foremost effort needs to be a push toward corporatism – the merger of power between government and business.

This is a natural marriage. The political world is a parasitic one. It relies on a continual flow of funding. The world of big business is a study in exclusivity – the ability to make it impossible for pretenders to the throne to arise. So, big business provides the cash; government provides protective legislation that ensures preference for those at the top.

In most cases, this second half of the equation does not mean a monopoly for just one corporation, but a monopoly for a cabal – an elite group of corporations.

This corporatist relationship has deep roots in the US, going back over one hundred years. To this day, those elite families who took control of oil, steel, banking, motor vehicles and other industries a century ago, soon created a takeover of higher learning (universities), health (Big Pharma) and “Defense” (the military-industrial complex).

Through legislation, the US was then transformed to ensure that all these interests would be catered to, creating generations of both control and profit.

Of course, “profit” should not be an evil word, but under crony capitalism, it becomes an abomination – a distortion of the free market and the death of laissez faire economics.

. . .

The Green New Deal is merely the latest corporate collectivist scheme on the list.

Corporate collectivism can be defined as a system in which the few who hold the legal monopolies of finance and industry gain an overriding control over all others, and in so doing, systematically extract wealth from them.

Today, this system has become so refined that, although the average American has a flat screen TV and an expensive smartphone, he cannot raise $400 to cover an emergency that occurs in his life. He is, for all practical purposes, continually bankrupt, but still functioning in a zombie-like existence of continual dependency.

This, on the surface, may not seem all that dangerous, but those who cannot buy their way out of a small emergency are easily controlled. Just create an emergency such as an uber-virus and that fact will be illuminated quickly.

In order to maximise compliance in a population, maximise their dependence.

As stated above, this effort has been in play for generations. But it is now reaching a crescendo. It’s now up to speed in most of the former Free World and those who hold the strings are ready for a major step forward in corporate collectivism.

In the coming year, we shall see dramatic changes appearing at a dizzying rate. Capital controls, migration controls, internal movement controls, tax increases, confiscation of assets and the removal of “inalienable” rights will all be coming into effect – so quickly that before the populace can even grasp the latest restrictions, new ones will be heaped on.

As this unfolds, we shall witness the erosion of the nation-state. Controls will come from global authorities, such as the UN, the IMF and the WEF. Organisations that have no formal authority over nations will increasingly be calling the shots and people will wonder how this is possible. Elected officials will increasingly become mere bagmen, doing the bidding of an unelected ruling class.

The changes that take place will be not unlike a blanket that is thrown over humanity.

The question then will be whether to:

a) give in to this force,

b) to fight it and most likely fall victim to it, or

c) seek a means to fall outside the perimeter of the blanket.


There's more at the link.

We can certainly see the drive by the powers that be to maximize our dependence on the state.  From the risible $600 "stimulus check" last year (since "enhanced" to what may be $2,000 in the latest proposal - all while giving hundreds of billions more to foreign nations and interests) to proposals for greater internal security measures against "racists" and "domestic terrorists" (who all, for some strange reason, appear to be former Trump supporters), the pattern is clear.  Make US citizens dependent on the state, so that they no longer argue with those who dole out money to them.  Make them afraid to stir up trouble, in case their lords and masters cut off the flow of largesse.  What's more, make as many laws, rules and regulations as possible to hamper those who are trying to remain independent and stand on their own two feet.  Force them to become dependent as well.  Remember "You didn't build that"?  That was all part of the plan.

We'll have to keep our eyes wide open, and watch for developments such as Mr. Thomas anticipates.  If we see them, we're going to have a stark choice.  Shakespeare put it neatly.


To be, or not to be - that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.


Suffer under them, or end them?  We certainly won't be left to our own devices, "to sleep - perchance to dream".  The powers that be intend to rule, and they intend us to obey.  Will we?

I fear many will take the easy way out.  For the rest . . . only time will tell.

Peter


A new shooter's toy - and sticker shock

 

As I get older, my hands and wrists aren't what they used to be.  Loading lots of rounds into multiple magazines gets old quickly, even using stripper clips, because of the repetitive motions necessary and the force needing to be exerted.  Literally, it's a pain.

Last year I started looking for some sort of automated solution.  I haven't found one that'll work for all magazines across the range of what I need, but I did find one very ingenious product from Butler Creek:  their ASAP Electronic Magazine Loader for the AR-15 rifle.  It's available exclusively from Midway USA.



When I bought it, late last year, the cost was $119.99.  However, when I checked yesterday evening, the price had jumped to $249.99 - more than double what I paid!  That probably makes it too expensive for individuals, although shooting ranges and firearms instruction schools may still be able to cost-justify it.  Since I sometimes go shooting with friends, and we may go through a lot of magazines in a day (think Blogorado), it's a useful tool for me.  Its ability to operate with batteries, as well as an AC adapter, makes it more versatile for field use.

Price aside, it works pretty well.  I had several false starts when I began to use it, as the internal belt system simply didn't want to behave itself.  I began to wonder if I'd need to send it back to Butler Creek for repair.  However, after about fifteen minutes' fiddling with it, clearing jams and resetting the machine, it began to work as promised.  It still hangs up from time to time - I'd say every third magazine or so I have to wait for it to clear itself, or do that manually if it's a bad jam - but in general it's a great time-saver.  For training, I load 25 rounds in a 30-round magazine, and it'll do that in about a minute.

Here's a Butler Creek advertising video showing it in operation.



That's pretty much all there is to it.  One adds more cartridges to the hopper, inserts fresh magazines in the well, and pushes a button.  The machine does the rest.  I reckon one person could load 100 magazines in less than 2 hours, with no real strain on fingers, hands or wrists.

I also found the machine a valuable magazine tester.  I have a large supply of old military steel and aluminum magazines, the so-called STANAG mags.  I've rebuilt them by throwing away all the internals and substituting a Magpul anti-tilt follower and a new spring and floor plate.  If the mag feed lips and body are in good condition, that makes it almost as good as new, apart from external scratches and discolorations.  However, a few still give trouble.  I'd marked a few like that to be thrown away, and decided on a whim to see how the ASAP handled them.  Sure enough, it jammed whenever it tried to load one of them.  Somehow, errors in feeding from those mags also caused errors in machine-loading them.  That's a worthwhile additional check on magazine health, IMHO, and one that I'll use in future.

I'm not sure whether the ASAP is still available.  Midway USA advises that it's on back order, but they'll accept your order for when it becomes available.  However, Butler Creek's Web site shows it as discontinued.  I hope that's not the case, because it's a truly useful product if you load a lot of AR-15 magazines.  Sadly, if the demand wasn't sufficiently high, I suppose Butler Creek can't be expected to keep on making it for the few who want it.

Meanwhile, if you can find one (particularly at the old price), it's worth considering.  I won't use mine all that often, but when I need it, it'll save me a lot of time, trouble and pain.

Peter


Thursday, January 21, 2021

Remembering Bob

 

A valued friend died a few days ago.  Miss D. and I are still absorbing his loss, remembering his warmth and laughter and fellowship, saddened at the thought that we won't share them again - at least, not in this life.

Nevertheless, I refuse to get downcast or despondent at losing Bob.  He was a man among men, who lived his life on his terms, and spat in the eye of anyone who tried to force him to do otherwise.  He was a good man all around.  I'm not going to be sad that he's died, as we all must, sooner or later.  Instead, I'm going to be glad that he lived, and that I was privileged to call him and his family my friends for over a decade.

Bob was a farmer in a state where farming was always a precarious existence.  There, you wrestle your living from the soil the hard way.  No highly fertile soil, no abundant water, no balmy weather . . . just hard work and worry, day in and day out, never knowing whether each year would be boom or bust.

Bob also worked as a sheriff's deputy back in the day, to help his community and to help make ends meet.  According to those who knew him back then, he was one of the "good cops":  hell on wheels to ne'er-do-wells, but compassionate and helpful to those who needed it, and with the wisdom to judge when each attitude was appropriate.  He was what the old-timers call a "peace officer" instead of a "law enforcement officer".  Would that we still had more of them around!  His daughter continues in the family tradition, working for the same sheriff's office.

Bob enjoyed firearms and shooting, and every year he and his family hosted our Blogorado gathering where we celebrated both.  I enjoyed those times, yarning about everything under the sun, sharing good food and drink in vast quantities, sitting around the fire in the chilly evenings and sharing the fellowship.  There were also phone conversations now and then, sharing ideas, arranging meetups, and generally catching up on each other's news.  I spoke with him two or three times in the last few weeks of his life, making various arrangements, and now I'm glad I did.

Like me, Bob lived through a heart attack, but his was much worse than mine.  He only just survived it, and it left his health in a precarious state.  He knew his days were numbered, but simply shrugged his shoulders and got on with life.  We understood each other in that way.  When you're a cardiac survivor, you take life one day at a time, because you don't know when your heart will decide it's time for another round with the Grim Reaper.  We talked about that sometimes, and were mutually grateful for each extra day we've been given.

Bob's funeral will be held next week.  Miss D. and I will be attending, not to mourn his death, but to celebrate his life.  We're richer for having known him, and we'll always cherish his memory.  If the Good Book speaks truly, I hope we'll see him one day - in the right place, too!  Bob wasn't a believer, but I am, and I've said my prayers for his soul.  God grant that they helped him over the threshold of the Pearly Gates.

Others among Bob's friends have also written about their memories of him.  Lawdog's comments are here, and JB's are here.  Go read, and enjoy Bob vicariously through them.

Peter


The "War on Terror" chickens come home to roost

 

We've become so accustomed to the language of the so-called "War on Terror" that we no longer pay attention to it.  Thus, when progressive left-wingers attempt to define any opposition to their ideas as "domestic terrorism", it catches us unawares - but that's exactly what they're doing.  Tucker Carlson explains, and discusses the issue with Glenn Greenwald.  If you'd prefer to read about their discussion rather than listen to it, see here.



That's the first illegitimate fruit of the illegitimate Biden administration.  They intend to crush all opposition, because the foundations of the administration itself are riddled with electoral fraud and corruption, and won't stand up to intense scrutiny.

Lawyers are taught an old maxim:


If the facts are against you, argue the law.

If the law is against you, argue the facts.

If the facts and the law are against you, assassinate the character of the witness.


That's precisely what such domestic terrorism legislation is intended to do:  assassinate the character of opponents of the progressive leftist political agenda.  Demonize them, so that their legitimate criticism is defanged and rendered criminal rather than protected.

Keep that in mind when scrutinizing any and all criminal law and/or terrorism-related actions by this Administration, and by its cronies in Congress and the Senate.  There will be ulterior motives for all of them.  Nothing will be as it appears on its face.

Peter


Big Brother - espionage edition

 

It seems that the innumerable attempts to hack into US government computers - even seemingly innocuous systems - have had far-reaching consequences.  When you put together information from several otherwise disconnected systems, quite often 2 + 2 = 4.


The CIA has concluded that their overseas espionage efforts have suffered long-term damage as a result of several hacking operations that obtained personnel records for most of the U.S. population. Large scale data thefts apparently began at least a decade ago and reached a pinnacle when the U.S. government personnel office, or OPM (Office of Personnel Management), had its entire database of detailed records on 22 million current and former government employees, including data on people who had applied for jobs and did not get one, copied by hackers in 2014. Intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, realized that could have a catastrophic effect on American espionage efforts overseas as well as counterintelligence (catching spies) in the United States. The damage has come to pass and has been worse than anyone imagined. The OPM hack was traced back to China although earlier large-scale data hacks may have been the work of Russians or freelancers who knew China would pay a good price for such data.

The OPM hack got everyone’s attention but when it was considered in light of the many other hacking events before and after 2014 that made off with large quantities of personnel data that, taken together, gave Chinese intel analysts a comprehensive picture of the American population. Not just currently but in the future. The Chinese soon had a better database on the American population than any U.S. government agency or commercial firm. The CIA was one of the first U.S. agencies to discover how damaging that was first hand. After 2010 the CIA not only began losing a large network of informants and operatives inside China, but eventually in all foreign nations. This was most visible in how the Chinese counterespionage agents would, after 2014, no longer go to great lengths to conceal their efforts as new American agents, including those whose CIA employment was unknown to anyone, even most family members, back home, were identified and monitored by the Chinese secret police as soon as the CIA personnel arrived. But the Chinese always knew and eventually they were flaunting it. This was an intimidation tactic and it worked. China was using George Orwell’s 1940 novel “1984” as a how-to manual rather than a cautionary tale.


There's more at the link.

The article also goes into detail about how China uses a network of its citizens studying abroad, and other individuals of Chinese origin, to spy on other nations.  It's breathtaking in the extent to which it's been used - and succeeded.  Effectively, China has made few or no technological advances of its own.  It's simply stolen the work of others, adapted it, and used it.

Food for thought indeed.

Peter


Wednesday, January 20, 2021

America has become an oligarchy - at least for now

 

Prof. Angelo Codevilla, whose concise and erudite insights have for decades helped to clarify what's going on "under the skin" of US politics, has done it again.


Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. did not deny setting rules for the 2020 election contrary to the Constitution. On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court discounted that. By refusing to interfere as America’s ruling oligarchy serves itself, the court archived what remained of the American republic’s system of equal justice. That much is clear.

In 2021, the laws, customs, and habits of the heart that had defined the American republic since the 18th century are things of the past. Americans’ movements and interactions are under strictures for which no one ever voted. Government disarticulated society by penalizing ordinary social intercourse and precluding the rise of spontaneous opinion therefrom. Together with corporate America, it smothers minds through the mass and social media with relentless, pervasive, identical, and ever-evolving directives. In that way, these oligarchs have proclaimed themselves the arbiters of truth, entitled and obliged to censor whoever disagrees with them as systemically racist, adepts of conspiracy theories. 

Corporations, and the government itself, require employees to attend meetings personally to acknowledge their guilt. They solicit mutual accusations. While violent felons are released from prison, anyone may be fired or otherwise have his life wrecked for questioning government/corporate sentiment. Today’s rulers don’t try to convince. They demand obedience, and they punish.

Russians and East Germans under Communists Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker in the 1970s lived under less ruling class pressure than do today’s Americans. And their rulers were smart enough not to insult them, their country, or their race.

In 2015, Americans could still believe they lived in a republic, in which life’s rules flow from the people through their representatives. In 2021, a class of rulers draws their right to rule from self-declared experts’ claims of infallibility that dwarf baroque kings’ pretensions. 

In that self-referential sense, the United States of America is now a classic oligarchy.


There's much more at the link.  Essential reading, IMHO, and highly recommended.

I have to agree with Prof. Codevilla.  America is, indeed, under the rule of oligarchs . . . at present.  However, if one is a student of history, one thing becomes very, very clear.  Every oligarchy throughout history has been overthrown - many of them violently, with terminally nasty consequences for a lot of the oligarchs.

One hopes our present powers-that-be remember that;  but one suspects they're so drunk with their newly regained power that they think this time, it'll be different.  One trusts they'll be doomed to disappointment.

Peter


A day of mourning for our constitutional Republic

 

On November 19th, 1863, approximately 158 years ago, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.  It was short and very powerful.  I'll quote it in full.  Passages in bold, underlined text are particularly relevant for us today.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


Today, with the inauguration of President Biden, we are perilously close to the death of our Republic.  He was not elected to his office - it was stolen for him by massive, incontrovertible electoral fraud.  All those pontificating that no such fraud took place, or that it's never been proved, or anything along those lines, are accessories to that electoral fraud, and are as guilty of it as the main perpetrators.

President Biden's administration will not be "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  It will be government by special interests, by the "Deep State", by the oligarchs of American society.  It will be inherently, endemically corrupt and partisan.  It will disregard the wishes and true interests of the American people in favor of those who engineered its accession to power, and who support it.  If they happen to be enemies of all that America stands for, that won't matter.


This is not a day to celebrate.  This is a day to mourn.

Then, when we have done mourning, it's time to accept the reality of our situation, and fight back.


The powers that be are determined that there will never again be a free and fair election in this country.  They are determined that we will be subjects, not citizens, and jump whenever and wherever they say "Frog!"  It's for us to show them that we will not submit, and will not obey, and will fight their corruption and fraud whenever and wherever possible.  I've already discussed some ways to do that.  Other bloggers have their own ideas.  Here's one such discussion.

We have lost a battle.  We have not lost the war.  That will only happen if we give up - and I'm not giving up.  Re-reading President Lincoln's prescient words, it's for us to bring "a new birth of freedom" to this land.  It's for us to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

Let us make sure that our ancestors, for whom the Gettysburg Address was written and to whom it was delivered, do not have cause to be ashamed of our efforts.

Peter


Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Things to keep in mind before tomorrow's Presidential inauguration

 

As we prepare to inaugurate a President who was not freely and fairly elected, but has come to his office through electoral fraud, let's keep three very important things in mind.  They'll be vital considerations as the new Administration takes over.


1.  The mainstream news media and social media cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

The news media lied to us constantly throughout the Trump presidency.  Their lies became a frenzied cacophony during the election campaign, and they have consistently refused to examine the (abundant) evidence of electoral fraud that should have disqualified Joe Biden from being declared the winner.  They will continue to lie to the American people in pursuit of the progressive left-wing agenda that is about to be unleashed upon us.  The news media are simply not to be trusted.

The same applies to major social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.  They openly chose sides over the past few years, and were effectively an extension of the Democratic Party during the election campaign.  They are now censoring any opposing voices.  Let us give them no credence whatsoever.  They don't deserve any.


2.  Expect fabricated incidents that will be used as tools to stir up public opinion and provide pretexts for new restrictions on our freedom.

I fully expect that something may happen during tomorrow's inauguration, perhaps a fake "attack" on Joe Biden or his entourage, or some sort of "terrorist" incident (whether in or around Washington, D.C., or elsewhere), or anything else you can imagine.  Without solid, incontrovertible evidence, I will not believe that such incidents are genuine.  Instead, I think they'll be manufactured by the progressive left as pretexts to further their agenda.  I won't be surprised to see one or more shooting incidents in the next few days and weeks, designed to whip up public opinion in favor of "assault weapon bans" and the like.  The left knows how to lie, and how to manufacture evidence to support their perspective.  They're experts at it.  (If you doubt that, consider the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" brouhaha of recent years, which was all a lie from start to finish, based on fabricated evidence.)  We can, and should, expect them to redouble their efforts along those lines.


3.  There are millions upon millions of ordinary Americans who know full well that the Biden administration will be illegitimate.  Let us stand together to oppose it.

The left's approach will be to "divide and rule":  set Americans against each other, and then preside over the chaos, using it to impose their agenda upon us.  Instead, let's remember that they only represent half the country.  We represent the other half.  We have at least as much determination and commitment as they do, and we should use that to work together and resist attempts to lever us apart.  Infighting and squabbling do the enemy's work for them.  Whenever we see attempts to say that this or that group are the only true conservatives, or believers, or whatever, and all others are fakers - don't you believe it!  We all have our part to play, and we should support each other as far as possible.  In unity there is strength.  The progressive left has already learned that lesson, and they're marching in lockstep to impose their will on us.  The only way we'll stop them is to offer a united front against their onslaught, a "shield wall" of unity and mutual support.  Furthermore, remember that the best form of defense is attack.  Don't just put up with their propaganda onslaught against us.  Give back as good as you're getting!


There you are, friends.  What say you?  Do you have any other cogent thoughts as we are on the brink of installing an illegitimate Administration, with the full knowledge, connivance and complicity of most of our politicians, Republican as well as Democrat?  If so, please share them in Comments.

Peter


The threat to our freedom posed by new security legislation

 

Caitlin Johnstone raises some cogent issues about where our "security state" is heading.


Biden has often boasted of being the original author of the Patriot Act years before it was rapidly rolled out amid the fear and blind obsequiousness of the aftermath of 9/11. Now in the aftermath of the Capitol riot we are seeing a push to roll out new authoritarian laws around terrorism, this time taking aim at “domestic terror”, which were also in preparation prior to the event used to manufacture support for them.

. . .

The only way to sincerely believe more Patriot Act-like laws will benefit Americans is to believe that the US will only have wise and beneficent leaders going forward, and the only way to sincerely believe the US will only have wise and beneficent leaders going forward is to be completely ****-eating stupid. The trajectory has already been chosen, and that trajectory is the one that has already given rise to Trump. Continuing along that same trajectory can only give rise to something far uglier, and that something far uglier will have whatever new authoritarian powers are added by Joe Biden.

They’re not actually worried about “domestic terror”, they’re worried about any movement which threatens to topple the status quo. They want to make sure they can adequately spy, infiltrate, agitate and incarcerate into impotence any movement which provides a threat to America’s rulers and the system which funnels them wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. The movements which most threaten this are not rightists, who are generally more or less aligned with the interests of the oligarchic empire, but the left.

This is who they’ll end up targeting going forward, and whatever Biden and Company wind up rolling out to fight “domestic terrorism” will help them do so.


There's more at the link.


Ms. Johnstone is a left-wing commenter, but also a pragmatist.  On this issue, I agree with her.  More security legislation, arrogating more dictatorial and authoritarian powers to the executive branch of government, will inevitably be misused by those with a penchant for rule by decree.  It'll also be used against potential political opponents, just as the Obama administration weaponized various departments in the administration (the IRS, the ATF and others) against its critics.

Any law that can be misused by, or distorted to the advantage of, the powers that be, will be abused.  Take that as a given.  The solution is to give them as few laws to abuse as possible - not to multiply laws for them to abuse.  We already have more than enough laws to protect our nation and our institutions.  Better to apply them - fairly, and across the board, not just against potential political threats - than to add new ones.

Peter


Blue states vs red states - the economic difference is striking

 

Brandon Smith, whom we've met in these pages several times, points out the real impact of politics on the people in an economic comparison of blue versus red states.


Blue state economies are dying because they are oppressive and this stifles trade and business.

. . .

According to the U.S. Postal Service, New York City alone saw over 300,000 residents pick up everything and leave from March to October. This is an unprecedented spike, an exodus the likes of which New York has not seen in a long time.

On the other side of the country, California is witnessing its own exodus, and it started well before the pandemic struck. In 2019, California saw over 653,000 residents escape the state’s suffocating bureaucracy and high taxes. In 2020, the state has hit its lowest population growth rate in history, even after accounting for babies born. More than 200,000 people left the state than moved in in the past year, and before anyone claims that these people are “liberals” invading red states, even the California media admits they are mostly conservatives seeking to escape the socialist sinkhole.

. . .

But what does this mean for leftist states in economic terms?  First, a huge loss of tax revenue, and this is dangerous for blue states in particular. California was projecting a $5.6 billion surplus in January of last year, only to face a $54 billion deficit by August. The state’s net tax revenue fell by 42% from March to May year-over-year, far outpacing losses in the rest of the country. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom begged Congress for $14 billion in federal aid, claiming that the government has a “moral and ethical obligation to help the states”.

And this seems to be exactly how states like California are surviving, by stealing tax dollars from people in other states that have been more responsible in caring for their economies.

. . .

What leftist cheerleaders often refuse to mention is the deep and insidious debt problems and deficits blue states suffer from. Looking at a list of the most indebted states in the U.S. in terms of total assets and liabilities, you will find that the vast majority of them are Democrat controlled.

Furthermore, blue states tend to have the highest levels of unfunded pension liabilities. In other words, their public pension obligations are only partially funded and are suffering a net loss ... Red states top the list in terms of the best funded pensions and the lowest debt per capita.

These debts are caused by irresponsible spending policies and endless socialist welfare measures, and as with most socialist systems, they always end up spending more money than they can bring in. They also end up wasting money more than they effectively spend money. This translates to much higher taxes, as blue states refuse to admit policy errors and fix their mistakes. Instead, they punish the citizenry with increased taxation. A list of the highest personal income taxes across the country is dominated by blue states.

Blue states like Illinois also stack the list of highest property taxes.

. . .

This dynamic has led to red states outperforming blue states across the board in terms of economic recovery. Job recovery in red states far outpaces blue states, along with recovery in GDP. As a result, a call has been rising for a “Blue State Bailout”, and with Biden ostensibly entering the White House they may very well get what they are asking for.

The problem is, the amount of bailout money that would satiate the hunger of blue states would have to be in the multi-trillions. As more and more people and businesses leave these places for more free states, it’s inevitable that tax revenues will dry up. And, as leftists raise taxes to cover the deficit even more people will relocate. It is a vicious cycle that will lead to complete dependency on federal dollars for blue states to survive.

. . .

It is also important to consider at a fundamental level the types of people that make up the populations of red states versus blue states. Blue states have built a culture of dependency and the majority of leftists have no useful skill sets that would allow them to adapt to an economic crisis. Meanwhile, red state culture encourages independence, self-reliance and productivity.

The most likely reaction among blue states or the federal government under Biden will be to try to “redistribute” the wealth and stability from red states to blue states.

. . .

There could also be an attempt to stop people from moving away from blue states entirely. We have already seen a beta test for this in California, where legislators are attempting to pass a bill which would legally require former residents to continue paying taxes to the state for years after they leave.

Of course, this would lead to severe resistance from conservatives, but that is a discussion for another time. The bottom line is this: the economic and pandemic policies of blue states have failed miserably. Their only option is to see the error of their ways, become fiscally responsible and remove totalitarian lockdown measures, or, attempt to leech success from the red states like parasites. Which one do you think they will choose?


There's more at the link.

It's a very serious concern that tax-and-spend progressive liberals now control the US government.  I guarantee you that they're going to try to do as Brandon Smith predicts.  (Nancy Pelosi tried, but failed, to do exactly that with her so-called "stimulus" packages last year.)  Since the Democratic Party now controls Congress, the Senate and the Presidency, there's a very good chance they'll succeed.  That might be the final nail in the coffin of the already debt-laden US economy, overloading it with a burden so great that it collapses under the strain.

I'm preparing a series of articles about inflation and the threat ahead.  It's growing worse by the day, and I believe we may be facing a very serious economic headwind as a result.  If we are, decades of tax-and-spend politics (which occurred, let's be honest, on both sides of the political aisle) will be at the root of it.

Peter


That's telling 'em!

 

I had to laugh at one response to a British man's tweet about firearms.  Paul Samuel asked on January 16th:



Many of the responses were supportive - but this one put things in proper perspective, IMHO.



As so many commenters have pointed out for so long, owning a firearm isn't a question of whether we need one, or even if we want one.  It's a natural right, rather than merely a legal right, and predates the US constitution (which recognized that natural, pre-existing right rather than conferring it - big difference!).  Anyone trying to prevent us exercising that right is going to run into all sorts of resistance, whether they like it or not.  It matters not whether they approve or disapprove.  That's the bottom line.

Self-defense - a natural right - automatically implies the tools needed to do that.  Both are natural rights, defense and tools.  The Catholic Church goes so far as to explicitly recognize that in its basic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.


Most, if not all major religions have a similar perspective on our right to self-defense, and (of necessity) our right to possess the tools necessary to exercise that right.  Kinda puts things in perspective, no?  What's more, paragraph 2265 above doesn't only apply to governments and their agencies.  Parents hold the moral authority to defend those in their care against attack;  and each of us holds the moral authority to defend ourselves and other innocent persons against attack.  Since all of us "legitimately hold authority" in that sense, we also have the right to use the necessary tools to do so.

Peter


Monday, January 18, 2021

Political activity in a surveillance society

 

Progressive extremists have made clear their intention to silence any and all dissent, up to and including physical violence against those who openly disagree with them.  Deplatforming and verbal attacks against conservatives are the norm these days.  In some cases, that's extended to mobs threatening their homes, keeping them awake, targeting their families.  There have been arson attacks against political offices, and allegedly even against homes.

I expect this to get worse now that the extremists have taken over the United States government.  Just as under President Obama the organs of state were weaponized against his opponents - the IRS auditing them, the ATF running guns to drug cartels in Mexico to (allegedly) provide a convenient excuse to target Second Amendment rights, and so on - we can expect that to redouble in effort under President Biden and/or those manipulating him in the background.  The scope and complexity of information gathering mechanisms available to the powers that be are extraordinary, and getting more so every day.

Back in 2013, blogger "The Lizard Farmer" put up an article describing how criminals and terrorists could be (and are being) tracked down.  It remains an excellent description of how political extremists can use law enforcement tools and agencies, as well as the intelligence and other resources of the state, to do the same to those whom they see as a threat.  Here's an excerpt.


We just happened to get lucky (from our perspective anyway) and kill one of the insurgents and have possession of his body.  He had no identification, the serial number on his rifle had been removed, and he had even gone to the trouble to remove his own fingerprints (talk about dedication).  Those are some significant hurdles to overcome figuring out who this guy is right?  Yeah, but not something we can’t work around.  A quick phone call to the field gets us a good high resolution frontal image of the DIs (dead insurgent’s) face.  The case officer uploads that image into a work file and sends it off to multiple agencies, say the DoJ (FBI specifically), DHS, and the State Fusion Center (there are more but let’s keep it simple).   The Fusion center comes back a few hours later and identifies the individual as Bob Jones of Llano TX. How did they do that? By loading the pic of the DI into a biometric facial recognition program and running a comparison to Texas’s drivers license photo database. If they hadn’t gotten a hit it could have been compared to other states databases as well.  It would have taken more time  but eventually would have given us the identity.   Now we have a starting point.

First thing we do is get a quickie warrant and pull all of Bob’s home and cell phone records for the last 90 days.  Then we’ll identify every call he made or received in a certain radius say 200 miles.  These calls automatically get categorized into business numbers and residential numbers. All calls will be looked at however we’re going to jump into the residential numbers first.  In that pool we’ll separate the numbers into known and assumed family (by last name, tax returns, public records databases, etc.) and unknown reason contacts.  In the last 90 days there have been roughly 300 calls to personal numbers which belong to a pool of 125 individuals. These 125 are now our short list for the time being.

Now we have an identification and an address it’s time to generate physical warrants.  So the local boys go and raid Bob's home and take any and everything electronic, anything that remotely looks like correspondence, and any credit/debit cards or checkbooks. They even go so far as to search vehicles ... Note at this point we’re not trying to build a case against Bob – hell he’s dead.  We’re looking for cross referencing information to identify other remembers of his group.  Once those items are collected they are handed over to a team of forensic technicians which begin to dissect the information and cross check other databases.  Within 24 hours we have a comprehensive list of who he sent and received emails from, the IPs and cookies of the websites he’s visited,  any purchases he’s made online and quite a few of the offline ones as well.  Remember this isn’t all encompassing but intended to give you an idea of how it works.

All of this information gets laid out into what we’ll call a virtual “starfish” with each bit of info representing a point.  We’ve got systems running the phone records down to individual names associated with those accounts referenced by physical location and date, systems referencing any known purchases referenced by location and date, and any and everything else we can dump into the system to expand the starfish.  Once this part is done it’s time to start looking at known associations.  We do this by take the folks we’ve already identified and trying to determine  their association with good old Bob.  For the sake of simplicity we’ll start on phone records – those 125 individuals.  Those individuals names now generate their own starfish.   As the multitude of systems begin to return information on each individual those starfish grow as well.  at 36 hours to keep things simple we’ll reject all information on those other starfish if they do not correspond to any of the kegs on the starfish that represents Bob.  That narrows down things considerably.

. . .

A couple of days later the analysts come back with a narrowed list of 16 people that could still be considered suspect however Bob had no contact with those people within 14-21 days of the attack in which he was killed.  How did they arrive at the 16 people? Remember when the forensic team tore apart Bobs computer? They took his known data (his IP)  and ran it across the stored multiple metadata databases to identify which websites he had been visiting.  Of those websites a dozen were considered radical or fringe (at least under TPTBs definition of such).  they then ran a cross check against those 125 folks from the phone records and 16 other people on our list had visited some of those websites.

. . .

One thing that is puzzling is the fact that Bob didn’t have any phone or email contact with our new 16 person  short list in the period immediately preceding the attack. Attacks are typically coordinated so there had to be some form of communication.  By scrutinizing Bob’s debit purchase records we find that he had bought a “disposable phone” at the local big box store one day before his last contact with any of the 16 individuals we’re looking at.  Getting the number to that phone isn’t hard at all with a quick warrant for the metadata for that carriers phones that were activated within a 36 hour period in Bob’s area.  But for timeliness we’re also going to scrutinize those other 16 individuals transactions for the same type of purchase – disposable phones and we come up with nada for them.

The carrier returns the information from the warrant we wanted and two numbers show up as having been activated in the big box store parking lot within that time frame. A quick cross check shows one of the numbers has no association with any of our existing data however one has a call to his personal cell phone.  Bingo we now have his number.  And we can go back and get all of the metadata for that number including numbers called/received, location, time, and length of call.  The phone data itself is built into a starfish of its own and cross referenced against any known contacts Bob had.


There's much more at the link.  It's an eye-opening description of how just one piece of information can be built into a vast network of facts and educated assumptions that, over time, will uncover almost anything one wants to hide.

Sophisticated criminal organizations are well aware of this investigative capability, of course, and have developed some pretty amazing work-arounds.  I know of one drug cartel that routinely had its operatives purchase prepaid mobile phones (also known as "burner phones") by the dozen in every town where they operated.  They would activate them in that area, using false names and addresses, then send them in ones and twos to other towns, or to a central point from where they were redistributed.  In this way, each major geographic branch of the cartel received a big selection of prepaid phones that were not associated with it, or with the area in which it operated.  They would use each of them no more than once or twice, then discard and destroy it so it could never be traced back to them.  It was expensive in money and time, but they regarded this as a normal cost of doing business.

They also used central message repositories, both e-mail and voice messages.  An e-mail could be written, but left in draft form and not actually sent to anyone.  Cartel members who had the password to that e-mail account could log into it from a burner phone, read the message, and act on its instructions, or compose another draft message with their response.  The same thing could be done using Google Voice and similar services, where verbal messages could be left and picked up by all concerned.  Such methods are open to interception as soon as the authorities learn of them, of course, but by using cryptic language and indirect discussion, useful information can still be conveyed.  The accounts set up for that purpose would be used for only a limited time before being abandoned and replaced by others.

All those techniques are well known by now, and have lost much of their usefulness as a result.  Of course, new techniques have been developed to replace them, but it's probably not a good idea to go into them here.  Suffice it to say that law enforcement agencies are well aware of them.  It's a constant struggle between the good guys and the bad guys.  Sometimes one side is ahead, sometimes the other - but it's very, very hard to know which one is on top at any given time.

Sadly, those suffering under political repression may also have to learn to use such techniques in order to continue their activities.  If one is supporting sensitive causes, it's often best to be very discreet about it;  so adopting clandestine means of communication might be safest for all concerned.  I've long since done that in trying to help former convicts and others whom I encountered during my years of prison chaplaincy.  There's a network of people who try to help former inmates, getting them out of their crime-haunted neighborhoods and gang associations, and arranging a fresh start for them.  Some of those gangs are "blood in, blood out" organizations.  If they learned that one of their members wanted to leave them and/or their neighborhood, murder would be done.  Extreme caution must be observed in making such arrangements.  We've learned the hard way to take that very seriously indeed.

It's also worth noting that any overt communication seeking to whip up support for open opposition to the authorities, or the current majority in Congress, or anything like that, is unlikely to be what it looks like.  Law enforcement agencies (as well as political extremists) are old hands at "false flag" approaches.  Recent posters have called for armed demonstrations in all 50 State capitals and Washington, D.C. against the inauguration of our next President are a good example of such activities.  Do you really think that serious politicians or conservative activists would be dumb enough to openly call for such activities, and ask supporters to come armed?  It would be an invitation to their opponents - and the authorities - to crack down on the spot.  Those posters were almost certainly the acts of agents provocateurs, not the real thing.

Distrust almost everyone who tries to join you, or entice you to join their group, in efforts to oppose government policies and actions.  Most will probably be untrustworthy.  It was said some years ago that "the US is crawling with informers and agents provocateurs".  It's only gotten worse since that article was published.  Trust only those you've known for a long time and vetted as thoroughly as possible, and even then be very, very careful.  All sorts of pressures can be brought to bear to "turn" a trusted friend and colleague into an informant.  East Germany was an extreme example, but that sort of all-encompassing state monitoring of its citizens is much easier in a high-tech era like ours.  Much is already known about past efforts to do so in the USA.  I've no doubt that many more such efforts are currently under way.

With so much of our lives laid bare in the electronic spectrum, who knows just how much Big Brother already knows about us?  It's likely a whole lot more than we think - or that we'd like.

Peter