National ID...

This is from a good friend of mine, Jeff Greenspan:

Getting work to provide for you and your family is currently an illegal activity. The process of obtaining work or actually engaging in work is, at its inception illegal for everyone in any profession.

In order to obtain a job, you

1) need to go to the national socialist retirement insurance office and request that the national socialist retirement insurance office kommissar enroll you in that office's program. They are more than happy to do this. The National Socialist Retirement Insurance program is ELATED when people CHOOSE to participate. Either way, it is a MANDATORY step one is forced to take to become employed.

2) Once the National Socialist Retirement Insurance office has provided you with your National Socialist identification number, then you are REQUIRED to visit your state office or bureau that permits you to engage in ANOTHER otherwise illegal activity of driving. (another subject for another day). You provide the drivers' licensing kommissar with your National Socialist identification number. The Drivers' Licensing kommissar then provides you with your permit to WORK (and drive).

In summary, in order to get a job, an otherwise illegal activity, you must get a waiver from the law which outlaws employment and an exemption from prosecution for attempting to work. This waiver comes to you AFTER visiting the National Socialist Retirement Insurance office to enroll in their program and AFTER visiting the Drivers' Licensing kommissar. Then the Drivers' Licensing kommissar completes the process and mails you your waiver and exemption (in the form of a licence) to WORK and drive.

This is the current law of the United States and all of the States.

Oh one more thing. Behind the scenes, after completing these two steps and engaging in the illegal activity of work, now that you have your waiver and exemption (in the form of a license), you are also complimentarily entered into the National Work Registry database, the NAtional Drivers Registry database, the IRS datbase, the FINCEN database, the MATRIX database, and the Socialist inSecurity database.

Thank you for your support!

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Gay Marriage

In the last issue of the Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter, I wrote an editorial about Utah's Amendment 3, which will be on the ballot this November. This is an amendment to change Utah's state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. At least, that's what the supporters tell you. There's a lot more to it than that.

Anyway, that editorial resulted in a lot of flak and response. I've received numerous "you heathen, you're going to hell!" responses, but mostly I've received supporting comments in favor of my opinion.

The following an an exerpt of an email thread in a forum to which I'd posted this article. I've removed identifying information for the person I'm talking to, but the discussion seemed relevant to this whole thing. This is the first person in favor of this amendment to talk to me about this issue without screaming about God and the Bible and whatnot.

Me:
> > 1) Who is government to define or "license" marriage? "A license
> > implies that you're able to do something that you weren't able to do
> > before," as Richard Mack says.

Him:
> Make the case to get govt ALL the way out of marriage AND show how to
> do it without creating legal chaos and you'll probably have my
> support. Fact is, government HAS been involved in marriage for most
> of recorded history. Admittedly, for much of that history government
> and church were one in the same--de facto or de jure. But marriage
> creates a host of issues that are likely to legitimately concern the
> community: guardianship, next of kin, joint property and liability,
> child support and other divisions of assets/liabilities should the
> union disolve, etc, etc, etc.

Me:
Actually, while "common law" marriages were defined in this nation
from the start, the government didn't get involved until later in our
history (late 1800s as I recall). The first marriage law, as I
recall, was a Jim Crow law meant to keep blacks from marrying
non-blacks. The first blood tests for marriage were instituted to
search for STDs and only later to keep cousins from marrying.

So there you have it: we have about 100 years of history in which
marriage was not run by the government.

Sure, de-tangling the mess now won't be easy, but we can do it.
Mostly it would involve getting the gov't out of every other damn
thing too.

Me:
> > Why do we have all these supposed
> > "benefits" for being married? I'm married and I don't see any great
> > benefits coming out of it thanks to the government...

Him:
> Well, then there is clearly no reason to extend the definition of
> marriage is there? No benefits, no discrimination even possible.

Me:
The only benefits given are government-enforced benefits (such as
insurance being required to include your spouse/family if desired).
Otherwise, the only benefits to marriage are purely internal to the
relationship itself.

Me:
> > 2) Why do we need to define it so badly? What are the compelling
> > reasons for doing it?

Him:
> Marriage IS defined, and has been in every society. Some have
> included polygamous marriages--some of those with caste systems--some
> have not. It has been defined in the US for all of our recorded
> history based on common law, tradition, and common consent. The
> question is, will it be rededfined by a few activist judges, by an
> out-of-State funded "citizen" iniative, OR will the legislature and
> voters of the State reserve the right to define it themselves?

Me:
So we're playing defense here, not offense against governmental
tyranny? Why shift gears? I say stay offensive or get out of the game.

Him:
> The same ones who said that the clear, black letter of the law
> regarding guns at the UoU or gun lockers in courthouses didn't really
> mean what we all know it meant? The same ones who are appointed and
> then stand for retention with no opposition? Don't tell me you (or
> anyone else around here) has suddenly taken to trusting Utah's judges
> to apply the law rather than making it up as they go.

Me:
Refer to my previous email. The way to fix this is NOT to "protect
against activist judges," but instead to re-institute impeachments.

Him:
> Protect against activist State judges. Protect against "citizen"
> initatives. Send a strong message to Congress and the federal judges
> that there is one more State that has done everything in its power to
> reserve to itself the right to define marriage as it sees fit.

Me:
See above. If a citizen's initiative passes, would not it be
according to the will of the Utahns who voted for it?

Him:
> Now you have. My reasons are primarily political: limit federal
> power, limit the ability of non-Utahns to turn Utah into a battle
> ground with a citizen iniative, protect employers' and landlords'
> rights. This is a case where my religious beliefs simply reenforce
> my political beliefs.

Me:
I don't see your "limiting" here. All I see is an increase in
governmental power being given here. I think your efforts would be
better spent combating the restrictions on landlords, employers, etc.
rights instead of in limiting the rights of others who may not have
your same viewpoint.

Freedom is a two-way street, fascism is not.

Him:
> Do YOU, as a libertarian, support forcing employers and landlords to
> provide benefits/accomodations to gay couples?

Me:
Again, those are GOVERNMENT ENFORCED accomodations, so I'm not in
favor of them no matter who they apply to.

Him:
> THERE is a fact.

Me:
Yep, the government FORCES people to do things all right.

Him:
> You've heard NOTHING about family constructs from me, have you? And
> what religious fervor have you heard from me?

Me:
I did not say it came from you, I said all I've heard in general from
anyone supporting this is religious fervor.

Him:
> The only "discrimination" is NOT being able to force private third
> parties to provide benefits they otherwise don't want to. ANYONE is
> free to rent to gay couples IF THEY CHOOSE. ANYONE is free to
> provide benefits to gay couples IF THEY CHOOSE. Those who oppose
> this amendment, almost without exception, oppose the statutory
> definition of marriage--but then are dishonest enough to claim that
> we don't need the amendment even as they work/hope to have the
> statute revoked, amended, or overturned at the first opportunity.

Me:
Now you've finally hit the nail on the head. So why are you wasting
your time opposing this amendment when it seems clear that you should
be instead spending your efforts changing the government enFORCEment
of all these "benefits" of marriage.

Him:
> The amendment is no more (or less) discriminatory than is the
> statute. If you oppose the amendment, you ought to be honest enough
> to just come right out and call for legalizing gay marriage.

Me:
I won't say that, isntead I'll say "let's get government out of the
marriage business!" That would legalize all marriage for everyone.
Even better.

Him:
> Let me recap:
>
> 1-Prevent activist State judges from redefining marriage.
>
> 2-Prevent out-of-State interests from turning Utah into an initative
> battlefield on this topic.
>
> 3-Send a message to the feds that Utah has done all it can to set its
> own definition of marrige.
>
> 4-Protect the rights of taxpayers, private business owners, and
> landlords.

Me:
Let me recap: The problem lies not in the idea that homosexuals will
be able to marry thanks to reversal of statues, "activist state
judges," or whatever. The problem lies in all of the benefits given
to anyone with the status of "married" thanks to government
enFORCEment of discriminatory laws.

So the answer lies not in opposing gay marriage, but in removing
government discriminatory enforcement!


Name any problem...it boils down to government.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Report from Boston: Stay Out of the "Free Speech Zone"

by Gan Golan 26 Jul
http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/98452/index.php

Last night, I had my first direct experience with the so-called free speech zone. It left me with one conclusion: whatever you do, do NOT go inside.

It's not only a blatant offense to free speech, but also highly dangerous and unsafe. I would suggest protesting anywhere in Boston but inside of it.

No amount of hyperbole can accurately describe how disastrous the interior actually is. It's like a scene from some post-apocalyptic movie – a futuristic, industrial detention area from a Mad Max film. You are surrounded on all sides by concrete blocks and steel fencing, with razor wire lining the perimeter. Then, there is a giant black net over the entire space.

[Pictures of the Boston "Free Speech Zone"]

That's not even the worst part. 80% of the space is actually beneath a construction site. You heard me, most of the zone is actually under a partially constructed building, broken up by gates, iron girders and wooden rafters, in the darkness.

No helicopter will ever be able to see an aerial shot of the people assembled, negating the major points of mass protest: to let the rest of the public see your numbers. This forced'invisibility' is so painfully obvious, that it is hard to believe it resulted from pure negligence.

What's more, the space fits only 1000 maximum by law, so the 1001st person who wants to express their rights, is out of luck.

That's not all. If you go inside, you won't be left safely alone with your fellow protesters. Right above you will be a suspended catwalk of wooden rafters traveling down the middle of the protest area. This strip is not only covered with reams of barbed wire, but officers (or national guardsmen) will be strolling above you just feet from your head. After walking in, it took us about 2 seconds to agree; "there is no f***ing way we are stepping into this trap".

And if you think that the civility of individual officers will make up for it, think again. As we were casually walking through the pen, our jaws open in dis-belief, a group of officers quickly surrounded us. Twenty-four of them. The first officer (Officer `Gately') approached us swiftly, and declared, "Do you know that the willful destruction of public property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a felony that carries 5 year in jail!"

We were taken aback by this introduction. Other people in suit and ties were walking by, using the zone as a pedestrian shortcut. a bunch of peaceniks were walking through in our shorts and backpacks and we were immediately suspect of committing a criminal act. I guess this explains the meaning of the rule about those wearing `inappropriate clothing' being searched. The overtly intimidating tone of the interaction didn't cease, so we soon left.

I called the BPD headquarters and asked to talk to the district 2 duty officer, in order to file a complaint about the rude treatment. When I asked him (Sgt. Ross) for Officer Gately's ID#, he stated that he could not give me that information because after all, I could be "a member of the press, or an anarchist". I guess myself (along with the press and anarchists) are no longer allowed to hold the police accountable for their actions.

A word of advice: Do not make the mistake of making your first visit to the free speech zone on your day of protest. It will be too late to realize what you are getting into.

It's crazy to think that this is happening in Boston, a city that fronts a reputation of being a cradle of constitutional values. The city has tried to force free speech into a cage where it cannot survive. The only reasonable response is to exercise our rights everywhere but the protest zone.

By giving free speech an unacceptable location, the City of Boston has unwittingly declared that the entire city is now a free speech zone.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Cartoon

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!

The Randian Nightmare Is Here

Recently, I've had to re-enter the "real world" and get a "real job" to keep finances afloat. This means I've had to fill out a W-2 and let the government take "their share," I've had to give up some of my independence to take orders from others, and I've had to keep a regular schedule - things I haven't done for three years.

Oh well. Don't cry for me, this is only temporary.

The thing is, this opportunity has allowed me to look at the so-called "real world" and how businesses operate in it. I'm fast seeing why I got the hell out of it and started doing my own thing to make money. Oi.

First off, I'm doing fairly heavy labor in a warehouse moving large objects on a hand truck to load and unload trucks. Pretty mindless stuff, but I'm seeing it not as a career (HA!), but as a $11/hour weight loss clinic where they pay ME the money.

Anyway...

This place has the usual crop of nincompoops and morons working there. What bothers me is the people supposedly running the joint are apparently apathetic to the idea that this place is falling apart around them.

Here's an example: the chain of command:
I'm just a chump laborer, so I rank lowest. Above me is a guy named Clayton who is the "Lead Loader" in the warehouse (he took the title with no raise, which proves my guess that his IQ is somewhere around 80). Next to Clayton is another guy named CJ, who is a lead for the actual production workers. Above Clayton and CJ is the supervisor for the warehouse, Doug. Above Doug is the Warehouse Manager/Foreman Ted. Above Ted is, of all things, a consultant for the company named Lee.

This little heirarchy only accounts for our warehouse: there are two other warehouses plus a sales floor as well. This is only one branch of several around the country for this company, which is quite large and nearly holds a monopoly on what we produce...

Anyway...back to the chain of command.

Clayton is just barely intelligent enough to do his job, but not quite smart enough to take Doug's Job. CJ is intelligent enough to do his job and could possibly, under duress, do Doug's job. Doug is just smart enough to do his job (barely), but not quite good enough to do anything but take orders from Ted. Ted is not quite educated enough to take Lee's job... You get the idea?

Right. Promote those who you know are no threat to your position. This seems to be the motto at this place. My motto at this place, since all these barely-functioning morons like to try and dump their halfassed screwups in my lap to fix them (see, I get things done, so I've become a John Galt for these people)...my motto is "N-M-P, man." (Not My Problem)

I literally do not care of the company goes under, if Doug gets a nasty email or phone call because something "wasn't done," or (worse yet) wasn't done "right," etc. I don't give a rat's patoot if Doug, Ted, Clayton and CJ get called into a meeting to be chewed a new bunghole by Lee or if Lee has to sit through a pummelling from the owner of the company. Matters not at all to me. See, I have no vested interest in the place. If they shut down tomorrow, I'll go back to the temp agency and get another job. At worst, I'm out a day's labor.

So anyway, my point is that the place is going to hell in a handbasket. Each of those in charge of whatever they're in charge of is just barely able to do the minimum to keep their area of operations running...just the minimum. Since the minimum is rarely good enough to actually keep things running smoothly, things inevitably get out of hand and royally f-ed.

To me, this means overtime. :)

Here's a scenario taken right from today's events:
4:50am: I arrive at the place and sit in my truck listening to tunes and drinking coffee.
5:00am: I walk in the front door, don my safety glasses, and find Clayton to see what I'm to do first. He assigns me and three others to start unloading one trailer. I don't object, despite the fact that I know that this is crap since we'll be falling all over each other (comon, four guys in one trailer??) in the process. What do I care?
5:45am: The trailer is nearly empty, since two of us four know how to actually move our asses around.
6:00am: The local delivery guys show up and get bent out of shape since only one of their trucks is ready to go (Clayton's responsibility). Clayton immediately recruits me to "help" him get the last delivery truck done. By "help" he generally means "do all the work quickly." So I do. The driver gives me dirty looks and I tell him, "Hey, man, not my problem. I was sent here two minutes ago to do this. Talk to Clayton." So he does. There is yelling involved, but I don't care; I just unload and reload.
7:00am: Our first break. Ten minutes of watching the sun come up and the clouds move across the sky while those with nicotine habits suck on lung sticks.
7:10am: Clayton assigns me to a full trailer and tells me to empty it and refill it, giving me the paperwork for it. It is, of course, the biggest pain-in-the-buttocks load there is to do today. Oh boy. I get going on it. Things run smoothly for the next little while.
8:30am: One of the other loaders, Steve, who is working on a trailer next to mine comes to ask me if I've seen Clayton. I say "nope" and add "Thank God," in my mind. Turns out, Clayton is supposedly "helping" Steve, which means Clayton comes in, picks up the paperwork once in a while, and disappears on an "errand" of some kind.
10:00am: Lunch break. I drink a Coke and listen to the other guys talk shit to each other. Since this is highly entertaining (for the most part), I jump in with "YER MOM!" and whatnot to keep things rolling. I love observing humans in their environment.
10:30am: Doug comes around to see the progress on the loads. He seems happy we're doing things well. He leaves again. Clayton and CJ have started some kind of rubber-band war to keep themselves occupado (as opposed to actually working). I should probably note at this point that Clayton is about ten years older than myself...
Noon: Things are starting to look bad again. I have all of the stuff I'm supposed to have loaded on the truck...at least what's available. However, the guys who produce the things I'm supposed to be putting on this truck are taking their sweet time doing it, so I'm short several items. I go home at 1:30, so they better get a move on. Eh? For the next half hour, my life consists mainly of going from one spot to another to gather things they've just completed (and not put away) so I can load them on the truck. Fun (NOT).
12:30pm: Break time again. Ten minutes of sucking down as much water as I possibly can get into my gullet while the others smoke.
1:00pm: More waiting on product. Just when I think I'm finished and put a "0" on an item (to say we don't have it instead of farting around), I get informed that so-and-so just completed that and I should go get it. This really bends me out of shape, since it's so frikkin' inefficient - especially on my feet.
1:30pm: I'm supposed to be going home now, but have just now gotten all the items I'm due on the truck. So I start the load paperwork. Overtime...
2:05pm: Paperwork finished, tallied, double-checked, etc., etc. Good to go. Hoping to avoid anyone in the warehouse, I beat it for the office to drop the paperwork before someone gets any ideas about having me "help." I get lucky and make my trip unaccosted.
2:15pm: After turning in the paperwork, giving Doug the low-down on what "took so long," and explaining the lack of arithmetic on the sheets to Nettie (who puts these into the computer - I skip the math bits on the sheets and do them in my head for the most part), I get the @#$@# out of Dodge and head for home.

That's how a fairly typical day at my new temporary job goes. I've been there a little over a month now.

This day wasn't so bad, since both Clayton and Doug basically stayed out of the way for most of the day. Generally, I would have three or four other entries in which I was pulled away from whatever I was doing and sent to do something else.

For instance, I regularly am pulled off of a trailer and sent to drive the forklift because Clayton is afraid of it (people routinely get fired for driving like morons and dropping expensive things onto the pavement, and Clayton apparently likes his job); I am regularly moved from one trailer to another in order to "help" those who are loading/unloading it "get caught up." Remember: "help" in their vocabulary means "you do it so I don't have to" and "get caught up" means "get us to where we would be if we were halfway competent."

Oh well. I'm sure they'll change my schedule again soon, since it's been almost a whole week since they did it last...

If you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, you need to. If you have, you'll see the paralells I'm subtly drawing here. This is a company that is quickly going to hell in a handbasket and I seem to be the only person who is getting any amusement out of it. The people who actually own and/or run the place obviously are either oblivious to what's going on or they're clueless as to how to fix it.

What do I care? I'm just a temp...NMP, man.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Visitors and Other Stuff

Wow, I just looked through the usage stats for July. The site averaged 100 visitors a day, peaking at 246 on July 2, which was the day I posted the article on currently active "Emergencies" declared by various Presidents of the U.S.

Anyway, thanks to all of you for visiting and keep coming back! :)


-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!