We also agree that the big push since 9/11, with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, among other things, are an absolute joke. Prior to 9/11, this country did infact have the capabilities to stop the attacks prior to their commission. Instead of addressing the fact that our current serves were poorly utilized and disfunctional, they added a new law enforcement division, and a wide array of tools for them to use. However, prior to 9/11, they were unable to use the tools that they were provided in the first place. So what do we end up with? More public money spent with increasing abuses of authority, with little positive gain.

One of the changes since 9/11 was the growing suspicion of photography. Most of us have heard of, or seen footage of, videographers getting arrested for filming cops. I won’t delve too much in this subject, but to make it plain and simple, if you are an officer, and you don’t want to be filmed, then quit. You either have issues that should prevent you from being an officer in the first place, or you are knowingly doing something illegal. If you have a problem being under the microscope of the public eye, tough shit. You got your power through us (by proxy of our elected representatives), and we have and will use our right to ensure that you are not abusing your power. That is absolutely what the 1st amendment was for. And if you don’t care or disagree, once again, you need to quit. Because eventually you will end up like officer douchebag of the Suffolk Police, who arrested a man for “obstruction” because he was filming. “I been a cop for thirty years…” “you can hold nothing over me.” Oh, except that fact that you got proven wrong in FEDERAL COURT. How does a man become a 30 year law enforcement veteran without understanding the law? Beyond me.

But videographers aside. Photography of public places considered to be “infrastructure”  has become a hot topic amongst LEO since 9/11. Is it possible that that man over there is taking pictures (of video) of this stuff to potentially sell to a terrorist organization? Let’s detain him and find out. Case in point, the video below.

It’s amazing that that LEO didn’t know the rules, couldn’t properly ID even one terrorist event that involved photography, nor even come up with a logical reason for detainment in the first place. “How do I know you not are taking pictures of infastructure to sell to al-qaeda?” First off, there is nearly no way to ID that from the detainment. None. Zip. Zelch. Oh, unless he had a text message on his phone from Bin Laden himself (who was still alive at this time) stating he needed this guy to take pictures of a random f’n subway in LA. But really, why would al-qaeda pay this guy to take these pictures? Need to do survelliance and figure out these facts? It’s called GOOGLE. Or Yahoo! or Bing. Or “The Jihadest Search Engine of Potential Targets.” Just click here and see if you can gather this “senstive information” that terrorrists are paying people for. They were smart enough to highjack 4 airplanes and successfully crash 3 of them into high profile targets, but they are too dumb to use google? Wonder what kind of recon they would need to blow up that subway? Try a pack of explosives and a train schedule. Is it sad to say that this officer could probably fail terrorist training camp? Yet he has a badge and a gun and authority? It scary really.

Stopping people for photography is really, well, Nazi like. Can’t think of a better word. “Show me your papers.” The Supreme Court ruled that stop and ID laws are only legal is there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed. Hate to say it, but the liklihood in this case of a crime being committed is 0. If this is a valid excuse, then “oh sir, you are carrying a briefcase, I will need to detain you to determine that you are carrying explosives,” becomes just as valid. Oh wait, this is the Police States of America 2011, so I’m sure it is. Nevermind. I guess that stuff that our ancestors fought and died for all those years ago doesn’t mean anything. If the police’s job is to protect us from bad guys (news flash, the Supreme Court said that that wasn’t their job either), then who is supposed to protect us from the cops? According to a USA Today article, federal prosecutors only go after 2% of all reported police brutality cases. And the numbers being reported have gone up from 2001-2007. It’s a serious problem. So apparently we are on our own, and until something is done about it, we will continue to have law enforcement try to intimidate us into submission to their interpretation of the law. Not the law itself. Or the even more primitive “right or wrong.”

Casey Anthony, © 2011 AP.

Welcome to the Three Ring Circus of the Casey Anthony show. Watch as her attornies attempt to magically demonize her family (true or not, does it matter much?). Be amazed at how Casey has transferred into a grieving mother of a dead child. But don’t miss the best act of all: the trickery, where it is claimed that Casey had nothing to do with the disappearance of her child yet helped to cover up an accidental death, all at the same time! When I figure out that one I’ll let you know, but given I’m not mental, or a drug addict, this may take a while.

Or you could do as I do, and laugh at the attempts of the defense, and hope that she gets what she deserves. Because when it comes down to it, we know that her daughter was missing for a month before anything was reported, she has consistently been caught in her web of lies of deceit, and while she was supposedly worried because her daughter was missing, she was out partying up the good life. If you are a parent, you can quickly put 2 and 2 together. However, her defense is hoping the jury can’t count. Or even think for that matter. What is the purpose of their theatrics? My only real guess is to convince everyone there that she is mental. And we should spend tax money on her for the rest of her life so she can be comfortable in her own deranged world.

I’ll post up more on the trial as it comes, and as I have time.

TSA Employee viewing the image from a full body scanner.

Full body scanners or intensive pat-downs, that is the question. The answer by an overwhelming number of Americans is neither. And for good reason.

America was founded as an ideal nation, a land of the free. Our forefathers had the insight from experience that a government that abuses its people in the name of authority was an evil enterprise. Even the noblest of intentions lead to inproprietaries against the people. Eventually, those good intentions paved the paths of hell that many Europeans faced at the time.

Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. These were values so ingrained in their minds that they are the cornerstones of the foundation of this country. Our Constitution did not just set forth laws in the land, but also the rights than every single American were to enjoy. Since then, the government has made its path to define and limit those rights, bringing idealism into reality.

Welcome to 21^st century America. Once again, those rights are under assault by the same government, formed over 200 years ago, that wrote them in stone. Ever since 9/11, our freedoms, our liberty, our ownership rights, and our privacy, have continually been assaulted and diminished, under a new “cornerstone” they have tried to implement: security.

Last time I read the Constitution, I didn’t read anything about the right to security. Well, not that provided by the government at least.

The problem with Security as a cornerstone is that it is not a fundamental right. We were not born with security. And those who rely on others to provide the bulwark of their security, without being willing to fight for it themselves, forfeit their rights. Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Safety. Security. There are natural methods to these, such as the police and military. Yet neither proactively protect safety. A man breaks into your house and robs you. The police show up. Yet if you live in an area with overly restrictive weapons law, this is your only fate. The government has made a promise to your safety and security it cannot make, at the expense of a fundamental right (gun ownership, 2^nd Amendment of our Constitution). Changes to that system are being made, under McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, but that is an entirely different story in and of itself.

The point being, the government far too often believes it can ultimately provide for the safety and security of the people. In doing so it over-reaches, and in the end, makes us less secure. Our founding fathers gave credit to the people of this country, knowing that the people are a genuine part of the safety and security measures. The Revolution wasn’t won by large, well-trained armies, but by everyday Joe’s who came together in arms and fought for what was their’s.

Yet our government today gives us a vote of no-confidence. Not only are we restricted on protecting ourselves, our property, and our country, but we are continually being denied our fundamental rights. Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. The terrorists won their battle, not by driving fear in the hearts of every American, but driving fear into the hearts of politicians, who give into demands that strip us our rights, and even deeper, our self-respect.

There is no sound reasoning that can justify full body scanning and intrusive pat-downs for every law abiding citizen that walks through the gates at the airport. Even if it provides a temporary level of safety, for giving in we give up our own liberty and safety. We were protected from unreasonable searches, yet we give men and women the ability to look upon our fully clothed naked bodies, or allow others to fondle in inappropriate areas, as if we were criminals.

Even worse, they are subjecting our children to this same level of disservice. “Susie, no one is allowed to touch you in those areas, unless they work for the government.” I am a parent, and I refuse to allow my child to fly. My child will not be subjected to radiation, and if anyone, even a TSA worker, would to touch my child in an inappropriate fashion, that person would not get that hand back.

Our government needs to wake up and get the message. Treating millions of Americans as common criminals does nothing to improve the safety of this country, especially when doing so, we are required to forfeit our fundamental rights. Doing so only creates tension and anger, which can be a bigger threat than from the terrorists. Or else we might as well pack our troops up and bring them home, because we have already lost the war.

Edit 11/16/2010:

This post originally had a picture that included a woman that had been scanned, then the scan inverted to show clear details of unmentionable body parts. Unfortunately, this picture has been determined to be a hoax. You can read up more on that at Just Get There.us.

20 year old Chief Marisol Valles Garcia stands outside her new office in Praxeids, Mexico. Alcazar/Getty

Welcome to the new face of law enforcement in Praxeids, Mexico, a border town that is part of the epicenter of the drug wars that have been going on now since 2006. New name is Marisol Valles Garcia, and she is a 20 year old (yes you read that right) criminology student at a university in Cuidad Jarez.

Apparently, the town mayor – Jose Luis Guerrero – asked for suggestions to improve the safety of his city. He liked her proposals so much, that he offered her a position, according to Al Jazeera. She will be unarmed, but will have body guards.

Valles Garcia inherits a decimated police force. Most of the force had quit for concerns of their own safety two years ago. She has brought on additional 10, bring the total to 13 officers. Their task? To go door to door, currently looking for the criminal element, according to NY Daily Times.

Honestly, I hope she’s not in over her head. She has signed herself up for possibly one of the most dangerous jobs, with enemies that have absolutely no regard for human life. I am worried they will go after her harder, being a female, and a single mother. This isn’t to put her down, I’m inclined to believe in her strength. Hopefully her community and newly minted police force will too. If not, it’s going to be a short tenure.,

A gas chromatograph. Samples from C. Anthony's trunk were analyzed using a similar device

For the first time ever, air analysis may be used as evidence in a trial. Not just a trial. Her trial.

No, this isn’t out of Fringe or CSI. This is a newer methodology, something that has never before been used in the courtrooms. Scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory took samples of carpeting from the trunk of Ms. Anthony’s Sunfire, and they ran a series of analysis on it. They also included samples from two other Sunfires, a pizza box, and a blanket that had been wrapped around a dead child who had decomposed in it for months.

First off they found chloroform. But after concentrating the sample, they were able to detect 51 chemicals, 7 of which are linked to human body decay.

This isn’t junk science. The methodologies behind this had been proposed earlier to discovered unmarked grave sites. Unfortunately, it isn’t mainstream yet, so it may or may not be allowed in the courtroom. It also isn’t a proof positive, since in the report from the analysis, they admit that the data is not 100% conclusive. However, it does lend credence to the state’s argument. Or maybe I should say the more likely side of the truth.

The idea itself is pretty cool. To those who say it is baseless science, remember that dogs do the same thing, without expensive laboratory equipment. They follow their noses, which are far more equipped than ours for picking up scents. However, it is a new science, and one thing given in science is that measurement comes with uncertainty. In my engineering program, we’re required to take courses on measurement, and courses on engineering statistics. As scientists, you have to be able to qualify your data, and provide confidence levels. “Oh, it’s pretty close,” doesn’t cut it. ’99.5% chance that this is exact,” that’s what we’re talking about.

Should the judge allow it as evidence? Personally, yea. It is evidence that is workable from both sides. Also, they still allow fingerprinting and ballastics work as evidence. You would be amazed to learn that these two types of evidence, central to so many cases, are not yet fully backed by science. More work has to be done to determine odds of a match. It’s more police work than science, which is dangerous. “Yes, it is a perfect match, this is the only person/gun it could match to,” is an opinion, sad to say. Not a fact. So if they are going to accept that, then “air science,” might as well to.

All Caylee wanted was love. All Casey wanted was to sex and party.

Either way, we’ll see what happens. This is turning more and more into an all-star event, from high-dollar attorneys to cutting edge, national laboratory science. Unfortunately it still circles around poor Caylee. Hopefully her soul will soon be at rest, with justice served to her murderer.

Only need a thousand more of these!

According to CSO Online, yet another Facebook spammer has been nail to the wall with outlandish fines for spamming. This time, Adam Guerbuez, of Montreal, was order to pay $1 billion CDN to Facebook for his spamming campaign.

Mr. Guerbuez set up a phishing site, stealing login information, then using a botnet to send out over 4 million spam messages. Man would I like to get my hands on that punk.

Obviously, he’s not on Forbes billion list, so don’t expect him to pony up. In fact, he’s refusing to pay a penny, and has declared bankruptcy. He’s trying to get a book deal out of the whole thing. Hah! If he did, he’d never see a penny of it. Oh well.

As I said, he isn’t the first that has been nailed. Last year another company prevailed against spammer Sanford Wallace, awarding more than $700 million US. Holy smokes.

Will all of this help us, the average joe, bombarded by spam daily? Maybe. According to Facebook’s CSO, Joe Sullivan, he has “seen discussions in underground forums where spammers say things like, ‘I don’t want a $100 million judgment hanging over me.’”

Honestly, I don’t know about you, but I would rather see these scum bags go to jail. I don’t see the humor in being one of the (insert cruel words here) who ensure that our daily inboxes are clutter with useless junk every day. It’s like the internet version of the shady street guy selling watches out of his jacket. Look at the fake or stolen inventory, and never realize you’ve already been pick-pocketed.

Maybe one day we will find a way to rid the word of spam. Until then, hopefully these billion dollar awards will help to keep some of these guys in check.

Bank of America Corporate Center - Charlotte, NC

Reading the Wall Street Journal today, an article on the 3rd page caught my eye. Apparently, Bank of America has gotten into the business of home invasions and parrot-napping (NY Daily News).

Angela Iannelli, a 46 year old from the Pittsburgh area, came home to find her door padlocked, her house ransacked, and her 11-year old parrot – Luke – missing. A Bank of America employeed royally screwed up, believed her property to be vacant (it wasn’t, nor was she behind on her payments), and sent a contractor over to install a new lock and “secure” the property. I guess in Pittsburgh, the method of securing a property is to cut the power and water, cut electrical lines inside the house, damage floors, damage furniture, pour anti-freeze into the toilets, and take animals. Maybe the contractor should be lucky it was caught after the fact, because there is a good chance that somebody might have gotten shot.

When Ms. Ianelli returned home, you can imagine what went through her mind. The biggest thing to her was that her parrot was missing. She claims to have stayed with friends until he was returned.

Bad enough that the bank goofed, even worse was the lack of response or helpfulness from the bank when she called. They denied knowing where he parrot was, then eventually was told she could drive the 80 miles to the contractor’s office and retrieve Luke herself.

Needless to say, she is suing the bank for more than $50,000, and she rightfully should. If I had been her, I would’ve wanted to make sure that I received enough to repair all of the damage, pay my lawyer, give myself a little, and, most importantly, had them wipe away my mortgage. Why? Just as we are judged by trustworthiness by the bank (i.e. credit score), we need to have trust in the bank too. Just because they hold the lien doesn’t give them to right to waltz in and out whenever they please, especially when it involves damaging the property.

The bank issued an apology this week after the lawsuit went public. Too little, too late. I’m rooting for you, Ms. Iannelli. Did I mention I have a Bank of America mortgage too?

She’s also requesting that the state, err, the Florida taxpayers, pick up her tab for legal costs. Uh, yea, sure thing there, let me write a check. And stuff it in a shotgun shell All I can say is I’m glad I’m not a Florida resident. I’d rather piss my money away to political pork barrel spending. Better than giving it to a child murderer.

And for those people who go on with the crap “oh, this is America man, innocent until proven guilty/” yea sure, we’ll buy that. I’m all for that, but when you supposedly haven’t seen your own young child for a month before you file a missing persons report? I don’t care if you are innocent or not, you are guilty. You failed as a parent to worry about your child even in the slightest bit. We won’t go into all of the other things that tattoo a big fat “I DID IT” on her forehead.

Going through, here are some more evidence photos of Casey, including probably one of the few that affect me: Casey playing with Caylee. Just makes this so much more sickening.

Oral arguments in McDonald vs The City of Chicago were made March 2nd, 2010

As much as I love Chicago, I couldn’t live there. No point moving to a city where the bad guys (correction, kids) can shoot you, and you can’t do much about it. That’s right, the wonderful 1982 handgun ban. Obviously these kids never got the memo, because murders committed by handguns has only increased since the ban was enacted. Imagine that.

Otis McDonald is challenging this ban in the U.S. Supreme Court. The big question is if the 2nd Amendment applies to states as well. Uh, yea. Hopefully the court will agree with my position.

Now don’t confuse me with the gun radicals, who think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own any gun that they damn well please. Obviously guns should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, mentally deranged/depressed/etc., and we have no need for fully automatic guns. But we do have a right to protected, or to protect ourselves. It is not the police department’s duty to protect individual citizens. As one Illinois court put it, such a duty “would put the police in the position of guaranteeing the personal safety of every member of the community.” (Detroit News). Banning legal citizens from handgun ownership, yet not giving provisions for the protection of those same citizens. It’s a recipe for disaster.

For the moral crusaders who support the gun ban, put this in your pipe for a moment. Pretend I’m a person planning on killing someone. I shoot them dead. Am I concerned about possessing a handgun? Probably not.

Now consider the other side of the equation. You have Otis McDonald, a 76 year old from Chicago. His house has been burglarized, his life’s been threatened. What can he do to protect himself and his property? They have the guns. Maybe the police can stake out his place for a while, right? Good luck on that one. If you want, go hold your breath and I’ll come and get you when the police arrive.

That’s why all law-abiding citizens in Chicago, especially in the city’s highest crime districts, should be hoping that McDonald wins. In fact, those in other cities with tight handgun restrictions should be hopeful too. If the Supreme Court shoots down this ban, many places are going to have to make some major changes.

As they should. I am a law abiding citizen, and a handgun owner. I am thankful we have  laws here to provide for legal gun ownership. I’m not running around the hood shooting people because I’m an idiot who thinks its cool to be a gangbanger. But it someone tries to come bursting through my door, trying to put my family’s life and property in danger, they need to reconsider. I have a right, an unalienable right, to protect myself. It is a cornerstone that this country was founded on…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Declaration of Independence

Gun bans go against this, signing away our rights to hoodlums and gangbangers, anyone who refuses to accept the laws that the common of the people agree to live by.  As law abiding citizens, we have a right to protect ourselves, and a right to reasonably choose how we would want to do so. As the old adage goes, “in order to have peace, you must prepare for war.”

A full transcript of the oral arguments made before the court in the case of McDonald vs. The City of Chicago (08-1521).

More information on the history and implications of this case and the ban in Chicago is available at CNN.