Astroglide Airlines

No posts for a while, been busy.

Seems all the new restrictions the TSA imposed after the British/Muslim/Terrorists thought about using liquid explosives are still in effect.

The GOOD news is that, according to the TSA's website, up to 4 ounces of "Personal Lubricants" are allowed as carryon luggage. Since any amount of toothpaste, shampoo, mascara, chapstick and a myriad of other items is prohibited, I'm not sure if this admission of allowing K-Y on the flight is an official invitation to join the mile high club, or some kind of TSA joke.

Yes, contact lens solution is allowed, but hand sanitizers are not. I personally have no idea why the TSA is now allowing a sex-related item on board, but I think if the people at the TSA were getting more of it, they might ease up on the other restrictions too!

Different Reactions

Porn was accidentally broadcast in the background of a news show in Sweden. The media was interested, some people were "shocked" but nobody complained.

If this had happened in the United States, the station broadcasting the material would be fined millions of dollars per man, woman, child, and unborn fetus that saw the program, the offending network would have to issue a lengthy apology and pledge to fight porn, and would have to pay for psychological counseling for all the children that will now become rapists and murderers for having seen this show.

Maybe my above conclusion is overblown, but the US is pretty scared of porn. You can't even show tits on TV, something that almost every infant has succled at one point or another. There is not one person who hasn't seen tits, a pussy, or a cock, so I don't see what the big deal is about the human body. Maybe it goes back to the puritan roots of the USA, but by at this point we respect no "establishment of religion."

I say, we should have a public porn network. It could be instructional for children, especially a lot of the people I went to CMU with.

The Sheep Accept Their Fate

Today, one day after the foiled terrorist attack, people are accepting the fact that they aren't supposed to carry any liquids onto planes, while Britons (a group not known to make a fuss) are complying with their countries banning of all carry-on luggage, including books.  For a people who stood up gallantly to the Nazis, allowing their own government to ban books on an airplane is beyond pathetic. 

 

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article from Ronald Bailey, in which he outlines that a risk of being killed by a terrorist is much less than getting into a car crash, murdered, drowned, and many other ways that people die even if terrorists carried out attacks regularly.  Simply put: all this extra security is nothing but political bullshit, designed to enslave the populace.

 

The security measures being used are completely ineffective.  In my previous post, I asked the question, "How far will it go?"  I think we could safely eliminate all of our current security checking.  All that is needed is an adaptive approach to singling out certain people.  Young arab males travelling alone seem to be a good place to start.  If we find out that terrorists are starting to come in other colors we can move our search there, but it's stupid to tell the 75 year old World War II veteran that he can't take his bottle of water on the plane because radical muslims are potentially using this method to bring bombs on board. 

How Far Would You Let It Go?

As an afterthought to my previous post,

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

--Thomas Jefferson

The inconviences of too much liberty is that shit can happen. Perhaps an airplane or two would go down every year through the acts of pissed off people.

How far would you be willing to go to prevent that?

0. Freedom

1. No weapons (federal laws that violates the 2nd amendment prohibit carrying on airplanes. Those who are licensed to carry weapons are among the most law abiding citizens. Just think if one of them had been on each of those 4 flights on 9/11. The muslims with the box cutters couldn't have gotten one of those. Would we be in the middle of this "war on terror" if we weren't disarmed on plans on that fateful day?).

2. Metal detectors.

3. X-rays of your luggage.

4. Prohibitions on all fluids (this just occured today; I read that they are expecting it to last 12 to 72 hours. We are now in the middle of that time frame). This means no water, contact lens solution, handcream, etc. Does the American woman with 2 young children carrying a purse full of handcream really worth this extra effort?

---Now that we've gone this far, how many steps below are you willing to let us fall?---

5. Prohibitions on ALL electronic devices. No cell phones to alert people if your flight is late, no iPods to listen to music on the 5 hour flight, subjecting your $3,000 laptop to baggage "throwers".

6. No more carry on luggage. No books, no magazines, no change of clothes, no nothing.

7. Strip searches. What if someone wrapped an explosive around their penis or tits? Suddenly you would have to go fully nude in front of the TSA.

8. Body cavity searches. Next a terrorist could put a condom full of explosives into their assholes, vaginas, whatever. So boarding an airplane would require everyone to take off all their clothes and have someone of the same sex stick their latex-gloved hand up their ass.

I'd personally like to see us go back to level 0.

Attack On All Liquids!

It seems that a plot was foiled to bomb planes in midair bound from the UK to the US.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who was probably behind it (here's a hint: they aren't Mormon). 

 

The British flipped out and banned all carry-on luggage from their flights, with only a few exceptions (wallets, glasses, tampons, etc.)  You aren't allowed to bring iPods or books!  Can you believe this?  These fucking British Nazis banned books!!!

 

Not to mention that it's just a little bit harder to join the mile high club now, since the TSA has banned all liquids and gels (no K-Y allowed anymore). 

 

Penn Jillette said that we should make every passenger consume a slice of bacon before boarding the flight; if we did that we wouldn't even need the x-ray machine or metal detector. 

An Early Obituary to Vinegar Joe's Career

"Vinegar" Joe Lieberman has just conceded the Connecticut Senate Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont. This defeat is the first indication of the ramifications of the Iraq situation. Lieberman voted to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq, violating the Constitution in that only Congress can declare war, something it hasn't done since 1941. CT is a very liberal state (as is the entire Northeast except New Hampshire), so this action comes as no surprise.

Joe Lieberman is an oddball of a senator. While he is a hawk on foreign interventions, he is sometimes socially liberal. He does not seem to be against gay marriage, flag desecration, and stem cell research. Also he feels that affirmative action goes against our country's history on equality, is a proponent of school vouchers, and seems to favor States' Rights. These are all good things.

However he is definitely far from perfect. He has voted against tax cuts, which is an overall bad sign. He is very pro gun-control, something that also does not jibe with the Constitution. Lastly, he (along with Hilary Clinton) have a vendetta against the entertainment industry. If it were up to people like him, everything from R-rated movies to pornography to violent video games would be under strict government control, if not outright banned. This stance has made me very hesitant to support him in any of his endeavors, since I find it hard to trust politicians who blatantly should their distrust of the public to make their own decisions, especially when it comes down to things that do no harm to others. My bad taste could be someone else's fetish, and I have no right to tell them what to like. Neither does he, or any politician.

Many other politicians are going to see fallout for their actions, and not just for the war. I think it's time for a clean slate, I think every senator and representative (except for Ron Paul) should be voted out of office. I would prefer to see this happen more often, but now is as good of a time as any.

Raising the Minimum Wage Won't Help Anyone

A new increase to the federal minimum wage has passed the house. If this bill becomes law, the minimum wage will increase to $7.25/hr over the next three years.

First off, if you check back on my blog, Congress does not have the power to regulate wages, so this law is unconstitutional, though that issue will never come up with the overall level of corruption we have in all three branches of government.

Overall, having a minimum wage creates problems for workers, employers, and the whole economy. The true minimum wage varies for anyone. Maybe a high school student working a summer job would gladly take $3 per hour to mow lawns, or wash cars. Maybe he wouldn't work for anything less than $8/hr at a fancy coffee shop.

It's up to a worker to decide what his or her minimum wage should be. Mine is $25/hr or 50,000 a year, I won't work for anything less than that.

There are many that argue, "a worker in a desperate state cannot hope to get a fair wage, therefore we must establish one so someone can live at least slightly above the poverty level."

This reasoning is bullshit.

Even a 30 year old man still working at McDonald's has options. Maybe the Wendy's across the street pays $1/hr more. Maybe he could find work at a construction site making $10/hr or more. Nobody is stuck in their current job. That's not to say they can just quit, but what's to stop them from looking for job options in the newspaper? Nothing.

However, if the minimum wage raises to $7.25, we could run into problems. The McDonald's paying $5.15 will raise their wages to the new figure. But the Burger King at $8 may lower theirs. Jobs where people receive tips might start requiring workers to give up a percentage of their tips to make up for the increase in their wages. Suddenly the job market is less flexible, everyone pays the same, there are no monetary incentives for "shopping around" and nobody is in a better position. It also gives workers a false psychological sense of an accomplishment. That may cause some to stick with their current shitty jobs instead of looking for something that provides them with enough income to truly survive.

Worse for everyone, driving up the minimum wage drives up prices everywhere. Maybe gas will go up another 5 cents because of it (so 10 gallons will be 50 cents more). A Big Mac goes up by 25 cents. Washing your car goes up by a 50 cents. Getting a pizza delivered costs an extra dollar. And finally your dry cleaning goes up by .45 cents a garment. There's the $2.60 right there, in everyday activities. You want to give up an extra $2.60 or more to pay for people that should go out and find better jobs?

It's not my problem that in general the people making minimum wage are uneducated, unlucky, or felons. Congress, keep your filthy fucking hands out of my wallet.

The Burning Middle East

In the past week or so as you all must know, Israel and Hezbollah have been battling each other in southern Lebanon. This situation has the potential to quickly get out of control and poses many problems to us here in America.

Israel had several soldiers taken prisoner by Hezbollah, the extremist muslim group that occupies most of south Lebanon. Israel retaliated by bombing much of the infrastructure of Beirut, including the airport and a UN OutPost (oops!!!). Hezbollah has several seats in the legislature of Lebanon though its operations are generally not supported by the majority of the Lebanese government. Enter Syria/Iran/etc. who finance and arm Hezbollah. Lebanon has been under the control of Syria to one degree or another for many years, and now Syria chooses to use Hezbollah to further its goals, which include constant threats and violence against Israel.

There are several issues we as Americans should consider. We have had many of our soldiers kidnapped over the years and have generally not bombed a country into the stoneage for it, especially when done by a non-sanctioned group. Israelis tend to have hot-heads, and usually do not care about the "big picture" when undertaking operations, which is fine, since they are a sovereign nation.

The problem is that the US government continues to fund Israel and many other countries with billions of dollars in foreign aid. If you want to give Israel, Egypt, Tanzania, and the rest of the third world money, that's good, but don't make me give it through tax dollars, especially when Israel is directly contributing to the high prices we are paying at the gas station. After Israel launched this recent attack, oil went up by several dollars per barrel, which will translate to 20-40 cents extra at the pump.

My recommendation is this: repeal the federal gas tax, giving everyone an immediate 18 cents per gallon cut. To make up the resulting budget deficit, cut off all foreign aid to everyone. Why force Arab-Americans to pay for Israeli buildings and Jewish-Americans to pay for Saudi mosques?

Israel is right to do what it thinks it needs to do to secure its country, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Tip

OK so its 2:40 in the morning. Problem was, I couldn't get my Motorola V710 to charge, I got the lovely, "unable to charge" message no matter what I did. This incident has happened with previous motorolas.

Here's a tip on how to fix the problem, if you encounter it. Take the battery out of the phone. Dip a Q-tip into some rubbing alcohol, and rub all the electrical contacts with it (they are on the battery, inside the phone where it connects to the battery, the charger, and where the charger connects). Allow a minute or so to dry, and it should work. Fuckin dirty contacts!

PS: I do still recommend Motorolas, only phones I ever use these days, only problem is with the charging.

US Constitution Article I § 8 Clauses 9-18

My Constitution project continues.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution spells out all powers given to Congress. Congress chooses to do more than what it should these days, but technically that's not legal. You can read my previous post for the first 8 clauses, here are the rest of them:

Keep in mind that all of these clauses follow the statement: "Congress Shall have power to"

Clause 9: "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"
Very simply, Congress can create any number of federal courts under the US Supreme Court, which it has done over the years. These courts generally hear moderate level appeals or federal crimes.

Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
Ah, piracy. One of the only crimes that Congress is allowed to enact laws against. We have thousands upon thousands of federal criminal statutes, but the only ones that are technically legal are those concerning piracy, counterfeiting of US currency, and treason (note that treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution in Article III § 3). The "Law of Nations" is a vague term, most likely meaning something committed in international waters to US citizens.

Clause 11: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Only Congress can officially declare war, but just try telling that to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Not to mention countless other presidents.

Clause 12: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
The Founding Fathers did not want us to be a military state, and in that end they wrote that money to fund armies cannot be given to them for more than two years. Loophole? Renew the appropriation.

Clause 13: "To provide and maintain a Navy;"
Many states border water, including practically all of the original 13 states. Putting their resources together could get them a larger fleet that could react to problems anywhere on the coast.

Clause 14: "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
Congress is allowed to create laws regarding land and the navy.

Clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
The Militia can mean many things depending on the context. In this case, we are talking about organized state militias that almost every man belonged to at the time. There is no modern equivalent.

Clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
This implies that Congress is allowed to regulate the militia while they are being used by the Federal government.

Clause 17: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
Clause 17 created allowed the creation and regulation by Congress of the federal district, now known as Washington, District of Columbia. DC, not being a state, does not have a representative in Congress, hence the "Taxation Without Representation" found on all DC license plates.

Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Congress is allowed to make laws enforcing the previous 17 clauses. Note that the federal drug laws cannot be found in any of them, nor federal gun laws, anti-corruption laws (RICO), etc.

Hybrid Bullshit

All of these idiots (with the help of US govt tax breaks) are jumping on the hybrid bandwagon.  They are so dumb, here in Virginia some of them get a special custom license plate that says "Clean Special Fuel." 

 

I hate to break it to you, but your "clean special fuel" is the same gasoline that goes into a Hummer. 

 

OK enough about the idiots.  A recent study has just found out that to make these cute special vehicles takes much more energy than to make a non-hybrid, and since hybrids tend to turn into scrap more quickly than traditional cars (due to the batteries and other exotic components), their energy cost per mile is huge. 

 

Here's the link to the study. 

 

So, not only is your Prius the most ugly car on the road since Oldsmobile went under, but it's bad for the environment too!

Flea Markets = Free Markets?

A friend of mine asked me to add a link to my blog for one of his family who does business at a flea market. It is in this spirit that I write this entry. I was only at a flea market one time, when I was young, probably about 10-12 years old. I remember countless items, everything from music to clothing to little trinkets that are very hard to find anywhere else.

Some say that the term "flea market" comes from clothing that was sold at early markets that was not the cleanest in the world, others have different opinions as to where this came from. At any rate, I'm sure that secondhand clothing is still very much present at these markets, and I'm sure that not everything is of top quality, but from second-hand knowledge, I know that there are many things available there that are hard to find in other locales. Porn movies sold openly, confederate flags and bumper stickers, these things will not be found at Walmart or your city's annual festival.

The flea market caters to those in seek of the unique, those who wish to find something very special or very cheap. eBay cannot replace the flea market. eBay tracks what users buy, has them pay mostly with methods that are traceable. You cannot buy a gun, offensive material, or hardcore porn on eBay; but you can buy one at a gun show, which is a specialized flea market. States have tried to impose restrictions on gun shows. There used to be no background check, since private party to private party gun transactions usually don't require one. In certain circumstances (when dealing with non-handguns) this can still be true. Private parties do not require a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell a gun, much like if you give or sell a gun to a relative (a grandfather passing along the family rifle to his grandson).

The problem is that some states and cities are trying to regulate these open air markets. This is decidedly un-American. If someone is offended by the guy selling the Nazi memorabilia at a flea stall, that person can choose not to do business with them and perhaps persuade others to do so, but people should be able to sell whatever they want.

In some ways, the flea market is the epitome of capitalism, of the American way and the American spirit. It is in some ways the last vestige of how the Founding Fathers envisioned our market society, and they should be preserved and free from regulation.

Here is a link to an American marketer who sells sex toys and porn in Michigan. Long live the free market: http://www.seductionavenue.com/

Another Waste Of The Government's Time

In yet another waste of our nation's time, congress has introduced another proposed constitutional amendment, this time to outlaw the burning of the American flag.  Aside from the fact that I have never seen an American flag being burned on US soil (and I doubt anyone else has), this is without a doubt protected political speech, covered under the first amendment. 

 

I think that most times someone burns the American flag, whatever their cause may be, they alienate other citizens so quickly that nobody will take them seriously. Besides, the type of person who will burn the flag will do so whether the law allows it or not.  But we don't need a law against this.  Flags are very rarely burned in a demonstration here and if people so choose, they should be allowed to set it ablaze.  Maybe the federal government (gasp!) wrongfully killed, imprisoned, fill in the ____, and the victim wants to make a statement.  I say, let them make it.

What about sluts?

In yet another example of government going where they needn't be, Rhode Island is now requiring cat owners to spay/neuter their pets or face fines. I'm surprised that there aren't more pressing issues for that government to tackle, but then again, it is some small liberal hamlet in New England that doesn't really have much to offer, other than less stray cats, I guess.

The state says the main reason is the costs of public animal shelters dealing with unwanted cats. But what about promiscuous women? I'd say it takes a lot more money to deal with an unwanted child than an unwanted cat, so maybe next we'll start requiring the sterilization of sluts!

Again?

"Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

--George W. Bush

Trying to defeat "gay marriage" once again, a phenomenon that has only happened in a handful of states so far, recognizing maybe, ten thousand marriages. A constitutional amendment on this issue is not needed. If some states want to recognize these unions for state tax and benefits purposes, that is their right as states. The federal government need not recognize it (currently the IRS does not), but why this "nuclear option." States effectively banned interracial marriage for a hundred years without wrecking the constitution. And what if this amendment is passed? Who really gains from this? I can tell you this, it is not going to remove gay people from the United States, nor make them any less vocal.

Do I need to point out that this issue only comes up during an election year?