A Geek With Guns

Michelle Bachmann, runner up for craziest Minnesota politician (Lynne Torgerson currently holds the title), has obtained a Swiss citizenship:

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has been granted citizenship in Switzerland.

Bachmann’s spokeswoman Becky Rogness says the congresswoman has been eligible for dual citizenship since she married her husband of Swiss descent in 1978.

I hope Bachmann does the right thing and renounces her American citizenship. The quicker she’s out of the country the better this country will be.

France is famous for Paris, wine, and interfering with business. If you wanted to start a business in France I would call you insane because the French government will punish you for daring to bring a little prosperity to their country. Some of the laws France has on the books are downright stupid but it’s good to see business owners have found ways around them:

Here’s a curious fact about the French economy: The country has 2.4 times as many companies with 49 employees as with 50. What difference does one employee make? Plenty, according to the French labor code. Once a company has at least 50 employees inside France, management must create three worker councils, introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the councils if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons.

French businesspeople often skirt these restraints by creating new companies rather than expanding existing ones. “I can’t tell you how many times when I was Minister I’d meet an entrepreneur who would tell me about his companies,” Thierry Breton, chief executive officer of consulting firm Atos and Minister of Finance from 2005 to 2007, said at a Paris conference on April 4. “I’d ask, ‘Why companies?’ He’d say, ‘Oh, I have several so that I can keep [the workforce] under 50.’ We have to review our labor code.”

If you’re a business owner and hire more than 50 employees you’re suddenly in for a world of hurt. Thankfully France hasn’t made it illegal for individuals to own more than one company although I’m sure such a law will be in the works soon since these “exploits” are being brought to life. Such a ban would be entirely pointless since business owners would find another way around the new law but it makes entrepreneurs less willing to start new businesses and therefore the economy continues to suffer greatly.

No sooner did several Democrats introduce a bill (named after Trayvon Martin of course, can’t let that crisis go to waste) to repeal stand your ground laws federally it has been rescinded:

Democrats backed off of their effort Tuesday to offer a “Trayvon amendment” to pressure states to drop their stand-your-ground laws after learning it was likely to be ruled out of order under the evening’s rules for debate on the House floor.

Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, said he will still try to force a debate at a more “appropriate” time in the future, saying action is demanded by the case of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager who police said was shot dead in a street encounter with a neighborhood watch volunteer.

The Ellison amendment would have docked federal criminal justice grants to states that have stand-your-ground laws, which allow residents to use deadly force to respond to an attack without first having to retreat.

No debate is needed, stand your ground laws are basic common sense. Why should I be forced to face possible prison time because some punk decided to attack me outside of my home? Why should I be subjected to possible criminal charges because some schmuck fabricated a way I could have fled a location where I was attacked? Why should be I prohibited the right to self-defense in a life threatening situation?

I’m not at all surprised that an idiot like Ellison (why do these idiots have to be from my state) introduced a bill that would further disarm individuals and benefit violent criminals. Let’s face it, Ellison isn’t concerned about stand your ground laws. The Trayvon Martin case is the perfect platform for one to boost their political career. Public opinion has ruled Zimmerman guilty or murdering Martin so any politicians who can successfully exploit the tragedy is looking to get a little boost at the polls. This is pure exploitation plain and simple.

The gay community is standing up and cheering now that Obama has come out in support of gay marriage. Unfortunately Obama is suckering these poor people as his phrasing was very carefully chosen:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

Isn’t it funny how Obama entirely oppose the concept of state rights until it’s convenient for him? Obama’s statement could be better phrased as, “Hey guys I want to say I support gay marriage to get the gay vote but I don’t want to alienate the conservative christians so I’m still going to leave myself a backdoor.” He didn’t actually commit to anything, he just said something he knew people want to hear and let them fill in the blank themselves.

What people seem to miss is that the debate over legalizing gay marriage entirely misses the point. The debate shouldn’t be whether or not to legalize gay marriage is should be whether or not the state has any right to enter the marriage businesses (by the way the answer is no). Voluntary association only involves the people associating so nobody else should have any say in the matter. If you want to marry another person of the same sex, multiple people, a battle rifle, etc. it should be entirely up to you. Just remember that as an ordained minister and soon to be license to perform marriages in the state of Minnesota I will happily marry you to whomever or whatever you want.

Via Shall Not Be Questioned I learned that the 10^th Circuit Court upheld the prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

There isn’t much to say about this ruling beyond the fact it’s bullshit. Once again I travel astray from the common path many gun rights actives follow since I don’t believe any right is something granted by the state. If you are a human being you are a self-owner and as a self-owner you have a right to trade your labor for whatever mechanization you desire and defend yourself. This necessarily means you have a right to purchase a firearm and use it for your own protection regardless of your status as a citizen. In fact allowing the state to rule on rights is always dangerous because it sets a precedence that they hold domain over determine what that right entails and they will always rule in favor of themselves.

For some odd reason many gun rights activists hold the idea that illegal aliens should be prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. I find this strange because many of these very same gun rights activists claim gun ownership is a natural right. Let’s take a look at what a natural right is:

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.

Natural rights, of which I would argue only one exists, are inalienable. The one inalienable right individuals hold is the right of self-ownership. One cannot trade ownership of self to another as ownership because one cannot grant control of themselves to others. Even in a state of slavery you have free will and may refuse to obey your master or even go so far as to rebel. As you hold exclusive ownership over yourself you have a right to defend yourself and use the product of your labor as you choose.

If you believe gun ownership can be restricted by the state in any way then you believe it is a legal right. I personally believe the right of gun ownership is nothing more than an extension of self-ownership since you trade your labor for the firearm. Because of this I don’t believe anybody can be prohibited from owning a firearm. Those who agree with this court decision must also agree that gun ownership isn’t a natural right but a privilege bestowed by the state.

North Carolina voted to ban gay marriage yesterday and the same item will be on November’s ballot here in Minnesota. I can’t help the people of North Carolina but I can do something in my own state.

I’m now an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church Monastery. When my credentials arrive I’m going to apply for my permit to perform marriages in Minnesota. Why am I doing this? Because the state has decided it has a right to define voluntary association and it’s about time some civil disobedience was done to give the state a giant middle finger.

I will perform straight, gay, polygamous, supernatural, and even self marriages (who could possibly love you more than you). Furthermore I am willing to observe and religious tradition you choose including christianity, judaism, islam, paganism, neo-paganism, asatru, or a complete lack of religious connotations if you so desire. Once married I leave it up to you to file your taxes under the status of “married.” If any questions are asked I’ll gladly vouch for the validity of your marriage.

Just because a larger group votes in favor of banning a form of voluntary association than the group that voted against banning it doesn’t mean the ban should be obeyed. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” If Minnesota votes to prohibit gay marriage give me a call and I’ll perform the ceremony for free. On the other hand if the state doesn’t vote to prohibit gay marriage I’ll still perform the ceremony and those wanting prohibited forms of marriage can still call me for a free ceremony.

The news has been covering the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) foiling of the “updated underwear bomber.” I didn’t bother to cover this because I was waiting for the punchline and it has been delivered:

The would-be bomber in the recently-uncovered plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner leaving Yemen was an undercover intelligence agent. The plot was revealed to U.S. intelligence officials based on a tip by Saudi intelligence services, and had been revealed by a Saudi intelligence source who had been inside Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and providing information to the Saudis and the CIA for some time.

CBS News correspondent John Miller, a former assistant director at the FBI, reports that the double-agent revelation goes right to the heart of an intelligence agency’s nightmare, which is identifying a source that they’ve placed inside an organization.

Great job guys, you did some bang up investigatory work. You managed to not only foil an “updated underwear bomb” scheme but you also managed to catch one of your own agents. With quality work like this I feel safer already.

People often ask me, “Chris, if you don’t believe we can change things politically why do you even talk about politics?” The answer is simple, politics is my sick form of amusement. Politics is nothing more than a sport in my opinion and in this sport there are spectators, commentators, players, and coaches. The spectators are your average people who merely watch the game and cheer by otherwise have no power to change the outcome. Commentators are the people who talk about what is happening, explain the players’ strategies, and otherwise help the spectators understand what’s happening. Politicians are the players and lobbyists are the coaches.

I play the part of commentator. Beyond explaining how the game is player I also explain what is or has recently happened. Like the spectators I have no actual power to affect the game but enjoy observing it and talking about it.

The spectators generally know the rules of the game by heart but know nothing of the nuances. They know that a bill must pass the Senate and House then be signed by the president but don’t understand all the lobbying and cronyism that goes on behind closed doors instead relying on commentators to explain those parts. While there are a vast number of teams playing this sport spectators generally have a very binary view of things. They only see the game as “their team” versus “the other team.” “Their team” is one the left or right side of the field while “the other team” is on the opposite side of the field. What about the other fields? Entirely forgotten unless “their team” is playing an away game there. Most of these spectators hold a great deal of superstition regarding games and believe their performance of certain rituals, like voting, can actually change the outcome of the game. No matter how many times you explain their wearing a specific red hat or jersey has no affect on the outcome of the game they refuse to believe you.

Coaches are the ones who call the shots. They train the players and develop the strategies but don’t physically play the game. Lobbyists and other cronies are the ones who tell the politicians what “the spectators” want and give them the strategies to achieve those desires. When an automobile manufacturer crony approaches a politician with a bill designed to shut out the manufacturer’s competition they will tell the politician how to sell it to the public. The crony will explain that the bill is for improving the environment and ignores the fact that implementing the bill’s demands is extremely expensive and therefore will cause smaller competitors to go out of business. Taking the crony’s advice the politicians being to play the actual game, selling the spectators what they want to see.

Each team promises to deliver its fans what they want. Fans of the “left” generally want the “right” to fail. When a player for the “left” says the fans want higher taxes on the wealth the “left’s” fans begin demanding higher taxes on the wealth. The “right” tells its fans to oppose higher taxes on the wealthy so the “right’s” fans begin vehemently opposing higher taxes on the wealthy. Whether the “left” wins or the “right” wins is irrelevant because nothing will negatively affect the wealthy, yet the spectators will feel as though they received a glorious victory or a horrendous defeat. Either way the spectators keep buying tickets and watching the game while the coaches and players become insanely wealthy.

That’s what politics is, a game. You can play any part if you really want to but ultimately the only people who matter are the players and coaches. That is until you realize that the game can no longer be played if the spectators stop showing up and giving the game legitimacy. Nothing will change regardless of what team wins, the only winning move is not to play.

If you’re in Minnesota you likely know about the “vote” being taken by our “representatives” at the Capitol regarding the Vikings Stadium. I use the word vote in quotation marks because this isn’t a vote, it’s a formality. The bottom line is this stadium was ensured to be built the second Zygi Wilf, the owner of the Vikings, said he wanted the state to fork over a large part of the stadium’s cost. Zygi is a politically well-connected billionaire meaning anything Zygi wants Zygi will get, he merely needs to make the right deal. Apparently he made the right deal since the Minnesota House voted in favor of the stadium:

The Minnesota Vikings won a decisive and long-awaited political victory late Monday when the House passed a public subsidy package for a new stadium, sending the project marching toward final passage at the State Capitol.

When the final vote was announced, two dozen Vikings fans — most clad in team jerseys — cheered loudly outside the House chamber and sang the team’s fight song. Afterward, amid chants of “Build A Stadium, Save Our Team!” Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak made his way through the crowd and was congratulated by smiling fans.

The final vote came after a day of high drama and a weekend of intense lobbying by Gov. Mark Dayton and the team, and produced a relatively easy 73-to-58 approval in the House. Though Republicans hold a majority in the House, DFLers did the heavy political lifting on the final vote, producing 40 of the 73 votes. The victory was also noteworthy because House Speaker Kurt Zellers — the leading Republican in the House — voted against the project.

There is much to be said about this entire fiasco. First let me address the rampant hypocrisy involved in this decision. Many people who are demanding the state pay a chunk of the stadium are also demanding the state tax the wealthy more. In fact the Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) is usually the party working to increase taxes on the wealthy yet were the ones to vote most favorably towards a publicly funded stadium. The hypocrisy is almost palpable, they just voted to give a bunch of money to a billionaire. Perhaps they believe the state should tax the wealthy more but subsidize the super wealthy?

Outside of the hypocrisy a question must be asked: what do the Vikings have to offer the politicians? Deals like these must be mutually beneficially and therefore Zygi must offer something of value to get his subsidy. Unfortunately these deals are always performed behind closed doors and thus we never learn about them until after the fact. Beyond campaign contributions I believe another thing of value was likely offered, jobs. When things were looking bleak for the Vikings stadium deal the National Football League (NFL) entered the game. What does the NFL consistently try to do? Get public funding for stadiums. What do you need to get consistent public funding? Lobbyists. As a general rule politicians are often offered plush lobbying positions by large corporations for favorable legislation so I wouldn’t be surprised to see several prominent Minnesota “representatives” receive jobs with the NFL after they exit politics.

What’s done is done. I am merely a commentator and thus have no power to influence the game, but I do have the ability to make some predictions. It’s no secret that the economy is getting worse, which would make an intelligent person ask why the Vikings want to build a new stadium now. With a crumbling economy won’t people become less willing to buy tickets to see a game? Of course. Does it matter to the Vikings? Absolutely not. Why? Because the same arguments they use to get public funding for a new stadium can be used to get ticket prices subsidized.

Zygi Wilf isn’t an idiot and thus has likely already come up with the same idea I’m about to present. Throughout this entire stadium fiasco the primary argument used by proponents of public funding for the stadium have been based on supposed economic benefits brought by the Vikings. The beauty of such arguments is they can be used to justify almost any subsidy. Let’s step ahead several years where further economic failures have caused ticket sales at Vikings games to falter. Zygi, seeing his profits plument, has decided he needs another subsidy. How can he sell it? Easy. All it has to do is tell the politicians that he will sell off the Vikings if they fail to be profitable. Such a sale would cause them to move elsewhere and thus deprive Minnesota of the economic benefit the team supposedly brings. Since the Minnesota economy is already at a very vulnerable point the loss of the Vikings will cause complete collapse and therefore the economy of Minnesota depends on subsidized ticket prices from the state. Using this argument the politicians will vote to subsidize some arbitrarily chosen percentage of ticket prices so more fans can enjoy the games and the Vikings can remain profitable. It’s all for the greater good after all.

Many people reading that likely scoffed and rolled their eyes but I believe my prediction is pretty sound. We must only wait and see (and if it does happen I’m going to be doing the biggest “I told you so” dance anybody has ever seen).

Coming as no surprise to anybody who actually pays attention to politics Rick Santorum has officially endorse Mitt Romney:

In a late-night email, he urged his supporters to back the presumptive nominee in order to deny President Barack Obama a second term.

Mr Santorum said he was impressed by Mr Romney’s “deep understanding” of economic and family issues, following a meeting with him last week.

I’m told that during his address Santorum said he was unable to endorse Ron Paul in good conscious because of Paul’s stark opposition of war and his lack of hatred for “brown people” and “the gays.”

The only reason Santorum’s endorsement means anything to me is because he holds bounded delegates. Bounded delegates are those who are stuck voting for a candidate at the Republican National Convention (RNC). The question of what will happen to Santorum’s bounded delegates when he suspended his campaign last month has been the subject of debate. With his officially endorsement of Romney the question raised (at least in my opinion) is whether or not Santorum’s bounded delegates will now be bounded to Romney.

I’m sure somebody can point to an official RNC rule regarding this but I have no delusions of the RNC actually following any set of rules. They’ve already threatened to not seat any delegates from Nevada if the state sends too many Ron Paul supporters. It would be trivial for the RNC to announce that any delegate bounded to Santorum must not vote for Romney. Of course doing that would put their justification for threatening Nevada into question. The RNC claimed its threat against Nevada was done because they didn’t believe the Paul supporters would obey the RNC rules and endorse the candidate they were bounded to. Many of Santorum’s supporters were vehemently opposed to Romney for various reasons and outright refused to give the former Massachusetts governor any support. These people may not play by the RNC rules either so it would only make sense if the RNC refused to seat any delegates from states that hold bounded Santorum delegates.

Once again I’m really hoping the RNC pulls something incredibly shady with this situation. The faster people wake up and realize the Republican Party isn’t for the people or by the people the quicker they can reduce the party to ash and hopefully start one or more new viable parties.