I was mugged today.

I was mugged today.  

Soon I shall be kidnapped. 

It was very clever if him, the mugger. Several cars and a beer truck passed by; a few looked before moving on. People walked,  oblivious or unaware at what was happening. The mugger was very clever. Most muggers skulk in shadows, this one stood out, openly, brazenly.

I can't say I didn't notice him, out in the sun. . Seeing him, I stiffened, whispered an oath.  It's terrible to say, but I knew immediately what he was and his intent. Maybe it was the clothes he wore, or the car he drove.  Perhaps it was a sixth sense. I don't know.

I drove past, hoping he hadn't noticed me. He pulled out behind to follow, I knew I was his mark. I hoped, foolishly, that he perhaps had received some instructions and would leave me at peace. But when he turned on the lights atop his car, my hopes were dashed in the strobe of red and blue

My mugger was incredibly clever, you see. With his blue uniform, his white car topped with attention-grabbing lights, and his gold badge, I could have easily mistaken him for a police officer. But the gun on his hip and the restraints on his belt displayed, without doubt, that he was an agent of force. And he would use the force to steal from my wallet.

He was clever, very clever. He had pulled me over, ostensibly, for public safety. My taillight was broken. And it was, having taken water some time ago. I feigned passive ignorance. It's best not to make any sudden moves around those capable of violence, nor to volunteer information to those you don't trust.   "Did I know," he asked? I claimed I didn't. He chucked.

Be polite to the person with the gun. I remember my self-defense classes.

He asked if I was in the racket. The racket, of course, is where you pay in, betting you will crash a car. They call it "car insurance"  Like a good citizen, I had paid my "premium" - though I would call it "the ante" or blind. Failure to do so and drive is punished with extortion.  But I didn't have proof,  he kindly noted that would be an extra pilfering.

He asked where I lived. See, the mugger can do this. If anyone else asks, I can refuse. But to refuse the mugger leads quickly to assault and kidnapping. So, reluctantly, I admitted my home.

He left to go back to his car. Most muggers attempt to make the transaction expedient. They close in swiftly, demand your wallet, and escape.  Not this one. They are clever. They are confident. You may ask why didn't you run when he turned his back.  Had I left, he would have given chase, called on other gang members. They would have assaulted me, and kidnapped me, and tossed me in a dungeon.  That is how they deal with those who don't acquiesce. 

So you can see why I was afraid to flee. 

After waiting about 10 minutes, He returned. He handed me my license and a paper. I have 15 days to repair the light, and 15 to produce proof I am in their i gambling racket. Failure results in his gang issuing me a "citation" - piece of paper - a contract I did not sign but they enforced. And if I don't pay, well - accidents happen to those who don't pay up. They tend to find themselves securely ensconced in the slammer.

I tried to plead with my mugger – I have no money. Could they at least mug someone who has money? 

No. 

I won't be able to repair the light, I will be fined, and I will be kidnapped.

No, you see we are all equally victims under their laws. Not laws that protect property or lives, but laws that allow for "cause."

What can they offer as an excuse? Do they make the city safer? Perhaps. But not one block from the mugging, fifteen people walked casually across a busy street. No crosswalk, no indication of their intent to cross to warn motorists. They simply strolled out in front of cars  hurrying to their destination. They trusted the vigilance of drivers.  Compared to a tail-light, that is very unsafe. Surely we ought have a mugger at that street, compelling, with threat of force, that they use the crosswalk.

Not five blocks away, I person was going fifty in a thirty, past a government building and in defiance of speed limits. Surely his speed was unsafe speed limits, generally are to reduce the damage in accidents and ensure the driver can react. Sadly, my mugger was too busy finishing his report to be there. And they coyly say they can't mug whom they don't see. Surely we ought have a gang member stationed there, or several, lest these marks go on with their day un-accosted.

A gang-member, in his blue and with his badge of gold, on every corner.  Sounds quaint. But if public safety is the issue, then they ought better ensure it.

And how is kidnapping going to improve the circumstances? So kidnapped, I cannot work, I cannot pay taxes. I shall be useless to the gang leaders and gang shot-callers as a revenue stream. I shall only exist as a warning. "Do not resist when we mug you, but give your money quietly, lest we kidnap you!" In short, kidnapping is a short-term resolution.

Because that's not what mugging is all about. Safety? They do not are for safety. City peace – not one whit. These are the polite lies they use to mask what they really want: money.  They cannot offer a service that deserves it - when was the last time crime was prevented by a cop. They offer deterrent, perhaps (though most criminals simply return to their trade.) But deterrent is a small satisfaction when you are the victim of a crime.  

If someone simply, on threat of force, pilfered cash from your wallet. Why you'd call it a crime. And perhaps you'd even get help. So long as that help wasn't busy mugging someone else, they will get around to your case - eventually. Too bad your wallet will have been emptied by then. .

So I am preparing to be kidnapped. I hope I can put myself at the mercy of the shot-callers, and avoid this. But in the event I cannot, then so be it. Better imprisonment then.

This all seems melodramatic. I assure you, I know. But what kind of world do we live in when armed gangs run the cities, extort the citizenry, and – through equal punishment, punish unequally? After all, where I not poor, I could simply repair my car.

Arguing that a car is a luxury gets us nowhere. Your case rests on the use of force. We must have a license because to drive without one incurs the wrath of the gang. Yes, a car is not a right. But property, and it's use, is.  It harms no one to use my vehicle with a busted taillight. They have not attempted to convince me, using reason, that my taillight endangers anyone sufficiently that I must be mugged. So they apply force. 

They have the guns, they make the rules, I suppose.

So, this front line mugger, this reverse-Robin-Hood  champion in the war against the poor, as struck a double blow.  I was mugged today. Soon I shall be kidnapped. 

My FCC comment.

 In light of net neutrality (I.E. Comcast F*cking the Internet), I conntected the FCC and commented thus:

"Simply put, the telecoms, all of which are thinly-veiled actual monopolies, cannot be trusted with the Internet. They use strong arm tactics and bullying, both on providers like Netflix, and on customers attempting to extricate them from the service. In no way can we trust them to ensure the fast lane/slow lane service will be priced fairly.

Our Internet lags behind many other countries, only because the monopolies - sorry - telecoms do not want to provide better service. They want to profit, and ignobly. "Get the mostest and offer the leastest." It would be comical if it weren't so true.

When we came to this country, a man or woman could make good in this country by simply carving out a part of the public land. The Internet is the new frontier, and technology the way to freedom. My giving this power to the telecomonopolies, you are denying the will to prosper of the United States.  New blogs, new stores, new industry using the logistics and the easy messaging of the Internet to make money, for themselves and for the government.

How many Internet business will we lose because access is only by slow lane? How many subscribers will quit Netflix and use libraries to get movies? The unintended costs of letting telecomonopolies introduce lanes will be staggering as it deincentivizes Internet use and Internet commerce. Economically it will be a disaster. Does that matter to you? the GDP used to matter, does it anymore? What happened to being a country of producers?

The media is woefully inadequate and untrustworthy. Pictures of George Zimmerman were lightened. His 911 call, manipulated. An informed public cannot trust television and radio sources.  Several news agencies have outright said they are biased, and one even won a lawsuit, claiming they didn't even have to tell truth. But on the Internet, where information is free, the truth can be found. And even if it requires digging through stacks of useless cat pictures and diatribes, I do it gladly to find out facts - something other media outlets often lacks.

By giving in to the telecomonopolies, you are taking steps to ensure that we cannot find any truth but the one most well liked by the corporations. What's next, a firewall to prevent us from knowing things outside Oceania? That would certainly prevent the spread of crimethink.

If an appeal to your nobler capitalist side side does not dissuade you, let me then try your more ignoble, despotic side.

Fast, inexpensive Internet is literally circuses. Imagine, if you will, a society of people who have access to cat pictures all day. With the incredible amount of slacktivism today, don't you think it would be wise to let people speak out on the Internet. They will spend their time lamenting with Facebook E-cards and never be so idle as to pick up protest placard and brick.

Open up the internet, and we will immerse ourselves in hedonistic voyeurism, and leave you alone. Close it down, and our idle hands will have to find something to do. Maybe rallying against a corrupt government is just the thing to get us off our Netflix-deprived couch-sitting asses."

I am not a lawyer, my language may be colloquial - I am a blogger and would-be demagogue. But if enough us remind them that the internet is useful, as a tool of information for us, or, at the very least, an easy leash for our masters - they may realize what a terrible idea Comcasts lanes will be.

Go here:  http://www.fcc.gov/comments and comment on 14-28

Off-Topic: Politics (or "Fear will keep the local systems in line."

So, I am going to diverge slightly from my normal self-help/self-improvement discussions to discuss, briefly, the attack on the Malaysian Airlines plane. I mean to discuss the tragedy in political terms, and address a broader problem that started with U.S. President Bush and was exacerbated by U.S. President Obama, Ukraine President Poroshenko, and various talking heads.

While listening to the news of the attack last night, I was shocked at how many people called it an act of Terror. A quick Google search shows this video of the crash and accusations of terrorism.

An airplane flies through an active war zone between separatists (rebels) and Ukraine. This is not an act of Terrorism. And an act of tragic stupidity on the part of Malaysian Airline pilots and traffic controllers.

. It's an act of war. One side in the Ukraine civil war shot likely shot down the plane, and in realizing they shot down a passenger jet, refuses to acknowledge it for fear it will delegitimize their cause in the public forum.

It's not terrorism, it's war with a Twitter feed. 

There is a problem with the definition  or Terrorist. A quick jaunt over to the FBI website tells us that a terrorist. Let's look at  the "international terrorist" definition:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

Pay attention now. the  parts that are important are number 1 and 2. Acts that are dangerous to human life and violate the law (of the US) and intimidate and coerce the civilian population.

All definitions of  terrorism maintain those two qualities. An illegal act, dangerous to human life, that is intended to coerce civilians.

Every crime is terrorism.  Every act is terrorism. Robbing a bank is now domestic terrorism. Mugging is terrorism. And in the US terrorists lack fundamental rights. If  a US citizen  is labelled a terrorist, they lose the protection of the constitution.

Fascists believe anything that creates civil unrest harms the state, and anyone engaged in civil unrest that harms the state is not a part of the state, nor granted the rights of a member of the state.  Disagreement with the state causes civil unrest.  Can we see how language here is being manipulated?

And let's not even discuss the terror of Drone strikes. They cow entire nations into acquiescing to the US.

I am not saying we shouldn't take a hard stance against terrorism or crime. But I think our broad definition allows those in power to take advantage of it for social capital.  In the case of the plane, it's clear the intention was to shoot down a plane. Perhaps it happened by mistake - they thought it was a fighter or bomber, perhaps on purpose - what kind of damn-fool pilot flies through a contested militarized zone?

War is inherently terrifying  and chaotic, especially to the civilian population. Does that mean war is terrorism?

I guess the point I try to make is that we make everything terrorism when we label everything as terrorism.And that is dangerous, especially for a nation built on freedom from the government for those governed.

SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT ALL DOWN!

Alright, a couple of things today, my friends.

No political rant today, but just some rhetoric. I don't know much about the shutdown anyway.

So the government is shutting down, and all non-essential employees are getting a free day (without pay, which is lame) and all essential employees are sitting at there desks wishing they were getting paid.

Notice how the people who keep us safe, the people who create and guard our beauty, our memorials, who teach and who serve, are the ones getting shut down. And the people who make these silly rules and spend the money aren't hurt in the least by these shutdowns.

I do hate that the people who are tightening the belt aren't wearing the belt.

Here's a link to what some vets thought of closing down the WWII memorial park.  hint: They didn't think it well.

Why is this shutdown affecting people we need and want. Why don't we put a moratorium on say, the DEA. For the next week, smoke them if you got them. Or snort. or..inject, I guess, if that's your thing...

I wee bit of hyperbole, but the point stands. The people punished by this shutdown are the people who protect our homes, keep our parks, and send us mail.  Does that seem just to you? And I am not letting anyone off the hook here. Shutdown is the worst thing in the world, and there were alternatives. But both sides were playing whiny poo-poo head.

Seriously, our legislative and executive branches are acting like children who refuse to find a solution that both sides find acceptable, and then blaming each other for starting it.

We the people need to start being the adult in the room and send them to bed without supper.

OK, I guess this was a rant. Maybe I'll shutdown for the day.

Edit: Quick Update on the Dickery of th Feds:

The Washington Monument syndrome, also known as the Mount Rushmore Syndrome,^[1] or the firemen first principle,^[2][3] is a political tactic used in the United States by government agencies when faced with budget cuts. The tactic entails cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government, from popular services such as national parks and libraries^[1] to valued public employees such as teachers and firefighters.^[2] This is done to gain support for tax increases that the public would otherwise be against. The name derives from the National Park Service's alleged habit of saying that any cuts would lead to an immediate closure of the wildly popular Washington

Monument.^[4] The National Review compare the tactic to hostage taking or blackmail.^[5]Although the strategy usually intends to highlight the government's value to voters, it can also be aimed at lawmakers themselves. Faced with budget cuts in the 1970s, Amtrak announced plans to cease train routes in the home districts of several members ofCongress.^[2]

The term was first used after George Hartzog, the seventh director of the National Park Service, closed popular national parks such as the Washington Monument and Grand Canyon National Park for two days a week in 1969. In response to complaints, Congress fired Hartzog and restored the funding.

The Paradox of Wages (Walmart and Middle Class)

Hello, Friends!

I promised that I would write more polemics in the vernacular to which I am accustomed . Currently my job at The Mineshaft has me on an incredibly tight schedule. So expect at least one post a week.

Last week  I posted a maudlin mopey post. Don't read it, kiddos. I reeled on painkillers and bad training. My hands slapped, my ego bruised, and my morale spinning in the can from training. Made more in tips than my bitch of a trainer. That may be why she was so pissy.

I read this post the other day about raising the minimum wage. The argument from both sides can be summed up thus (Paraphrase):

Pro-wage-hike: More disposable income means more money to spend and more money through the sluices!
Anti-wage-hike: Suck my fat capitalist dick.

OK, that's not actually how the conversation goes. The wage hike supporters (towards which I lean) basically lean on one argument with two premises. More money in the hands of the average spender means more money over all, and it won't cost that much to raise wages.

This is common sense - a man (or woman) can only enjoy so many yachts, have so many parties, and so many "escorts". Eventually the amount they can spend dries up. Mostly   Jesus. How many zeros?*

This is true of the commoner too. I can only spend so much on blow before I have to slow down, take a pill (a different pill) chillax and let my heart rate get below 200.

But, I need to point out, there are a lot more of us, the commoner, than them, the wealthy. And those parties may benefit a few people. Maybe they have a hundred or a thousand servants, but that money doesn't go through he sluices as nicely as giving everybody working for large corporations a fat check.

I am not completely on board with government mandated wage increases. I am a friendly anarcho-moderate, and while the government has done some good things, a cumbersome juggernaut is she. So I am always cautious with regards to it's movements. But what else can we do? The corporations will be dickbags. Not even good business men, but actual shortsighted cuntnuggets.

I hate when we have to make laws to protect people from Dickbags, but see below.

Anti-wagers contend that this will cause businesses to offer less jobs, and fire people and generally continue to fuck up the economy like giant dickbags.  Truth is that most of the huge corporations could probably handled the loss in income. It's not that much. Sell a yacht or two.

This PDF happily explains what would happen with an increase to $12 an hour. Dick-all, really. Big corporations like Walmart and Target would not feel much of a pinch, nor would the consumer.
If wages increased 6 grand a year, but costs go up 1500 smackers similarly, that means the average consumer makes out to the tune of $4500 dollars a year.

Not too shabby. And according to these leftist folks there will be no affects on business. They also suggest rose-colored glasses, because they seem to forget the rule of business 101*.

BUT, my dear readers, this is all from progressive (pinko-commie) writers. Surely the conservative view can give us the "fair and balanced" style you expect from me.  So I did some research.

They say: Fuck you, worker. Dance for your dimes!
The third article above discusses it.
Some fuckwit named Mark Wilson  says that "fringe benefits" might be curtailed by a raised wage.

To him I ask: "What "fringe benefits?" Like, what benefits would be taken from someone? Insurance? Not fringe. Half-off burgers? Not a big deal for my last job. And most box stores don't give you that much of a discount.

Let's say Walmart gives you 10% off your own purchases. In order for you to make out the same as a wage hike (that hypothetical 4500 bucks) you'd need to spend 45 thousand dollars there in a year (while making, for those bad at math, an average wage of 15-20 grand a year). . At the Mineshaft I'd have to eat there for 1500 meals a year.

No wonder poor people have bad credit and are obese. Look how we have to spend and eat to take advantage of our fringe benefits.

Yeah, OK. keep your 25 dollar gas cards at Christmas, you petty jizzstains, I'll take the raise, thank you very much.

Math, Mr. Wilson. Either you do math or you fucking don't.**
I mean, are you fucking serious?

I can almost  -almost see the argument that Smaller businesses may have to fire employees. Well, most of them pay a little better than minimum, and can be more choosy. I agree that a higher wage will make better employees think about taking the job. God knows that some of my employers could have done better picking anyone else and paying them more.

Regarding the argument that these are "not meant to sustain a living wage." Newsflash, dickweasel, they are.  I never planned to be a cuss-spitting gonzo commentator, but there you fucking go. I never wanted to be on the side of more laws. I am. They are. The middle class isn't moving up. Old folks are staying in their jobs longer. So where's a poor dickhead kid gonna go?

Nowhere. We are going nowhere.

And finally, let's look at the free market. "Let the free market handle wages." Yeah. Let's Fucking Do That. Except that it's cheaper to buy a politician than produce a better product. Can't compete? Have Uncle Sam wag their finger at your opponent.

And don't get me started on cheap entertainment and expensive consumable goods. Christ. That's a great way to keep us down.

It's all shit, my friends. The song and dance of Walmart is just a mummer's show. They are spending more than they pay out to keep wages right where they are.

The rich are in bed with civil servants. Democracy is dead to the almighty dolla'. It's just aristocrats partying on top.

Do your best. And if you are one of those rich fucks at the top, remember, many of you didn't get there by yourself. You worked, sure, but you also had help. Mentors, friends, lucky breaks that made your work worthwhile.  Remember that. Mentor and befriend, and occasionally give in on fiscal policy.

Because as the French Nobility learned, it's awful hard to spend your money when you're dead.


* Dickbaggery.
** Yes, those numbers may be massaged.